"classic mode" anyone? Meh. FWIW I think "Standalone mode" is fine because it refers to the node itself, not the cluster. A cluster of standalone mode Solrs vs. a SolrCloud cluster.
The SolrCloud name seems too entrenched to try to re-brand it. And that's fine with me; it's not a terrible or confusing name (IMO). I agree with Jan's concern that "self-managed" is ambiguous as to who/what is managing Solr. It reminds me of the debacle of the "implicit router" -- boy was that a bad choice! ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:13 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like Cassandra's original suggestion: uncoordinated vs coordinated (or > non-coordinated vs coordinated). > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 8:19 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > >> Hehe, «self» can be self as in user or self as in Solr :) >> >> Legacy feels like something that is going away, and so far the >> «standalone» mode is not going anywhere. >> Cassandra, feel free to propose what is your best shot and then I don’t >> think we need a poll for it, but suffice a bunch of +1 on this thread. >> >> Managed Cluster vs Non-managed Cluster? >> Managed Cluster vs User Managed Cluster? >> >> Jan >> >> 11. aug. 2020 kl. 16:21 skrev Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com>: >> >> OK, fair point about self-managed. But I object to "leaving it" as >> Legacy, as I've previously explained (I put that in quotes because it’s not >> always called that at all - it has at least 3 names right now). >> >> The reality is someone can come up with an objection to every single >> possibility. Someday we have to live with something that’s good enough and >> move forward, or we’ll end up just living with the total mash of things we >> have today. Which maybe is fine with everyone. >> >> I’ve tried to put real mental work into thinking about a good name, and >> have tried to compromise based on feedback. At this point, though, unless >> someone else comes up with something I’m likely done here. We’ll just >> “leave it” all as it is now. >> >> Cassandra >> On Aug 11, 2020, 9:11 AM -0500, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com>, wrote: >> >> I object to "self managed". It gives the impression that Solr manages >> itself, whereas it is the other way around: users need to manage the >> standalone mode with lots of manual effort, as opposed to SolrCloud which >> is in spirit self managed (solr manages itself using zk). >> >> I'm +1 with Legacy replication and SolrCloud replication for now. Later, >> we can get rid of "SolrCloud" and call it something else. Also, once >> SolrCloud is stable enough, we can get rid of legacy mode altogether. We >> can discuss that elsewhere. >> >> On Tue, 11 Aug, 2020, 7:16 pm Cassandra Targett, <casstarg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I don’t feel there is a consensus for me to move forward confidently, >>> but the docs need to be fixed before 8.7. I’ve thought about Ilan’s >>> suggestion, and like calling the non-SolrCloud cluster “self-managed”. It >>> avoids the currently awkward phrasing and any misinterpretation of my >>> original suggestion with clumsiness as Gus pointed out. Can everyone live >>> with that? >>> >>> If so, that leaves what we might eventually call SolrCloud is the >>> remaining sticking point. It’s not a problem that needs to be solved today >>> as the term isn’t going anywhere yet since there aren’t any patches or PRs >>> to change it at a code level. >>> >>> Barring further objections, then, I think I will go ahead with mostly >>> leaving “SolrCloud” as it is, and replacing/modifying “Legacy Scaling”, >>> “leader/follower mode”, some cases of “Standalone mode”, and similar >>> constructions with “Self-Managed Mode” or “Self-Managed Cluster”, etc., as >>> appropriate. >>> >>> Cassandra >>> On Aug 7, 2020, 9:05 AM -0500, Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com>, >>> wrote: >>> >>> The suggestion to use “managed” and maybe “self-managed” is an >>> interesting one. Do you think it’s possible some might confuse that with >>> the other ways we use managed - like the “managed-schema”, and “managed >>> resources” (synonyms and stop words)? Neither of those are >>> cluster-specific, and I wonder if the overlap in terminology would cause >>> them to be conflated. >>> >>> Cassandra >>> On Aug 6, 2020, 10:51 AM -0500, Ilan Ginzburg <ilans...@gmail.com>, >>> wrote: >>> >>> Both "legacy" and "SolrCloud" clusters are search server clusters. Seen >>> from far enough, they look the same. >>> >>> In "legacy" the management code is elsewhere (developed by the client >>> operating the cluster, running on other machines using a diferent logic and >>> potentially another DB than Zookeeper) whereas in "SolrCloud" the >>> management code is embedded in the search server(s) code and it happens >>> that (currently) this code relies on Zookeeper. >>> >>> I see SolrCloud as a "managed cluster" vs. legacy that would be "Self >>> managed" by the client, or "U manage" (non managed when looking at it from >>> the Solr codebase perspective). >>> >>> Same idea as coordinated vs uncoordinated basically. I don't know why >>> but I prefer "managed". >>> >>> Ilan >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 5:49 PM Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2020, 10:22 AM -0500, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com>, wrote: >>>> >>>> WRT the name "uncoordinated mode" I fear it could be read (or even >>>> become known as) as "clumsy mode" which is humorous but possibly not what >>>> we're going for :) >>>> >>>> >>>> I had also considered “non-coordinated”, and prefer it but couldn’t >>>> articulate why. The association of “uncoordinated" with clumsiness might be >>>> what was bugging me. >>>> >>>> I'd perhaps suggest Cluster mode for SolrCloud though I'm not entirely >>>> sure if Legacy Solr (in curren parlance) is not a "cluster" too, cluster >>>> being a somewhat vague term. However Clustered Mode and Legacy Mode seem >>>> more on target. I think "Legacy" could be changed since we're not really >>>> planning on abandoning it (are we?), but >>>> >>>> >>>> One can have a cluster and not run SolrCloud. I think from an >>>> operations perspective, several servers all running Solr is considered a >>>> cluster, no matter what tools are being used to get them to talk to each >>>> other. >>>> >>>> I think “Legacy” (also used today already in some contexts) is >>>> problematic because there aren’t plans to abandon it. Also “Legacy >>>> replication” is pretty close to exactly what PULL replicas use to poll >>>> leaders and pull new index segments when needed. IOW, it’s not “legacy”, >>>> it’s very actively being used in a growing number of clusters. That might >>>> be an implementation detail users aren’t aware of, but I feel the term is >>>> really lacking mostly in that it just doesn’t say anything besides “it’s >>>> older”. >>>> >>>> the adjective there SHOULD communicate reduced functionality because >>>> there are plenty of features that are cloud (cluster) only. >>>> >>>> >>>> In my view, the reduced functionality of non-SolrCloud clusters is >>>> mostly around coordination of requests, leader election, configs, and other >>>> similar automated activities one does manually otherwise. So, I feel that >>>> sort of proves my point - a word that conveys lack of coordination is a >>>> good option for what it’s called. If there is a better antonym for >>>> “coordinated”, I’m all for considering it but haven’t yet been able to >>>> think of/find one. >>>> >>>> I think it’s important to think about what differentiates the two ways >>>> of managing a Solr cluster and derive the naming from that. What features >>>> of SolrCloud don’t exist in the non-SolrCloud approach? What words help us >>>> generalize those gaps and can any of them be an appropriate name? >>>> >>>> >>>> -Gus >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:27 AM Cassandra Targett < >>>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The work in SOLR-14702 has left us with some awkward phrasing (which is >>>> still better than what it was) around non-SolrCloud clusters that I've >>>> offered to help fix. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think we've struggled for years to find a good name for non-SolrCloud >>>> clusters and we've used a number of variations: "legacy replication" (which >>>> it isn't, since PULL replicas use the same thing), "Standalone mode" (which >>>> it isn't because it's a cluster), now "leader/follower mode" (which could >>>> be confusing because SolrCloud has leaders). >>>> >>>> >>>> Yesterday I thought about what really differentiates a SolrCloud >>>> cluster and a non-SolrCloud cluster and it occurred to me that a key >>>> difference is the former is coordinated by ZooKeeper, while the latter is >>>> not. That led me to think that perhaps "coordinated mode" can someday be a >>>> better replacement for the term "SolrCloud", while "uncoordinated mode" >>>> could be a replacement today for all these other non-SolrCloud mode >>>> variations. >>>> >>>> >>>> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14716 and will >>>> create a branch for work in progress, but before I forge too far ahead, I >>>> want to draw attention to it first to give a chance for discussion so we're >>>> in agreement. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Cassandra >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>> >>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>> >>>> >>
