So here it is for a record how I am solving it right now: Write-master is started with: -Dmontysolr.warming.enabled=false -Dmontysolr.write.master=true -Dmontysolr.read.master=http://localhost:5005 Read-master is started with: -Dmontysolr.warming.enabled=true -Dmontysolr.write.master=false
solrconfig.xml changes: 1. all index changing components have this bit, enable="${montysolr.master:true}" - ie. <updateHandler class="solr.DirectUpdateHandler2" enable="${montysolr.master:true}"> 2. for cache warming de/activation <listener event="newSearcher" class="solr.QuerySenderListener" enable="${montysolr.enable.warming:true}">... 3. to trigger refresh of the read-only-master (from write-master): <listener event="postCommit" class="solr.RunExecutableListener" enable="${montysolr.master:true}"> <str name="exe">curl</str> <str name="dir">.</str> <bool name="wait">false</bool> <arr name="args"> <str>${montysolr.read.master:http://localhost }/solr/admin/cores?wt=json&action=RELOAD&core=collection1</str></arr> </listener> This works, I still don't like the reload of the whole core, but it seems like the easiest thing to do now. -- roman On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thank you, I am glad to read that this usecase is not alien. > > I'd like to make the second instance (searcher) completely read-only, so I > have disabled all the components that can write. > > (being lazy ;)) I'll probably use > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CollectionDistribution to call the curl after > commit, or write some IndexReaderFactory that checks for changes > > The problem with calling the 'core reload' - is that it seems lots of work > for just opening a new searcher, eeekkk...somewhere I read that it is cheap > to reload a core, but re-opening the index searches must be definitely > cheaper... > > roman > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Peter Sturge <peter.stu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> We use this very same scenario to great effect - 2 instances using the >> same >> dataDir with many cores - 1 is a writer (no caching), the other is a >> searcher (lots of caching). >> To get the searcher to see the index changes from the writer, you need the >> searcher to do an empty commit - i.e. you invoke a commit with 0 >> documents. >> This will refresh the caches (including autowarming), [re]build the >> relevant searchers etc. and make any index changes visible to the RO >> instance. >> Also, make sure to use <lockType>native</lockType> in solrconfig.xml to >> ensure the two instances don't try to commit at the same time. >> There are several ways to trigger a commit: >> Call commit() periodically within your own code. >> Use autoCommit in solrconfig.xml. >> Use an RPC/IPC mechanism between the 2 instance processes to tell the >> searcher the index has changed, then call commit when called (more complex >> coding, but good if the index changes on an ad-hoc basis). >> Note, doing things this way isn't really suitable for an NRT environment. >> >> HTH, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Replication is fine, I am going to use it, but I wanted it for instances >> > *distributed* across several (physical) machines - but here I have one >> > physical machine, it has many cores. I want to run 2 instances of solr >> > because I think it has these benefits: >> > >> > 1) I can give less RAM to the writer (4GB), and use more RAM for the >> > searcher (28GB) >> > 2) I can deactivate warming for the writer and keep it for the searcher >> > (this considerably speeds up indexing - each time we commit, the server >> is >> > rebuilding a citation network of 80M edges) >> > 3) saving disk space and better OS caching (OS should be able to use >> more >> > RAM for the caching, which should result in faster operations - the two >> > processes are accessing the same index) >> > >> > Maybe I should just forget it and go with the replication, but it >> doesn't >> > 'feel right' IFF it is on the same physical machine. And Lucene >> > specifically has a method for discovering changes and re-opening the >> index >> > (DirectoryReader.openIfChanged) >> > >> > Am I not seeing something? >> > >> > roman >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jason Hellman < >> > jhell...@innoventsolutions.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Roman, >> > > >> > > Could you be more specific as to why replication doesn't meet your >> > > requirements? It was geared explicitly for this purpose, including >> the >> > > automatic discovery of changes to the data on the index master. >> > > >> > > Jason >> > > >> > > On Jun 4, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > OK, so I have verified the two instances can run alongside, sharing >> the >> > > > same datadir >> > > > >> > > > All update handlers are unaccessible in the read-only master >> > > > >> > > > <updateHandler class="solr.DirectUpdateHandler2" >> > > > enable="${solr.can.write:true}"> >> > > > >> > > > java -Dsolr.can.write=false ..... >> > > > >> > > > And I can reload the index manually: >> > > > >> > > > curl " >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://localhost:5005/solr/admin/cores?wt=json&action=RELOAD&core=collection1 >> > > > " >> > > > >> > > > But this is not an ideal solution; I'd like for the read-only >> server to >> > > > discover index changes on its own. Any pointers? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > >> > > > roman >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Hello, >> > > >> >> > > >> I need your expert advice. I am thinking about running two >> instances >> > of >> > > >> solr that share the same datadirectory. The *reason* being: >> indexing >> > > >> instance is constantly building cache after every commit (we have a >> > big >> > > >> cache) and this slows it down. But indexing doesn't need much RAM, >> > only >> > > the >> > > >> search does (and server has lots of CPUs) >> > > >> >> > > >> So, it is like having two solr instances >> > > >> >> > > >> 1. solr-indexing-master >> > > >> 2. solr-read-only-master >> > > >> >> > > >> In the solrconfig.xml I can disable update components, It should be >> > > fine. >> > > >> However, I don't know how to 'trigger' index re-opening on (2) >> after >> > the >> > > >> commit happens on (1). >> > > >> >> > > >> Ideally, the second instance could monitor the disk and re-open >> disk >> > > after >> > > >> new files appear there. Do I have to implement custom >> > > IndexReaderFactory? >> > > >> Or something else? >> > > >> >> > > >> Please note: I know about the replication, this usecase is IMHO >> > slightly >> > > >> different - in fact, write-only-master (1) is also a replication >> > master >> > > >> >> > > >> Googling turned out only this >> > > >> >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.solr.user/71912 - >> > > no >> > > >> pointers there. >> > > >> >> > > >> But If I am approaching the problem wrongly, please don't hesitate >> to >> > > >> 're-educate' me :) >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks! >> > > >> >> > > >> roman >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >