Looking back at this thread, I think it's important to scope this decision to a characterization of the *cluster* -- it's in the title. "SolrCloud" vs "User managed".
I think "User Managed" is a fair name choice for the *cluster* if it isn't SolrCloud. But what I cling to, kicking and screaming, is that an individual Solr node in a User Managed cluster is in "standalone" mode. We've used that term for a *long* time, it's throughout our code, and I think it's a reasonable name choice to describe the mode of an *individual* node of Solr. I think in this naming debate we can have it both ways -- a "User Managed" Solr cluster is a cluster of Solr nodes in "standalone" mode that are orchestrated/managed by the user. I don't think a user should be shielded from exposure to the term "standalone" just because there was agreement on a name choice to characterize what we now call user managed clusters (that previously had no name; we needed a name). And in some minority scenarios, there isn't even a cluster, by the way. On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:18 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]>: >>> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]>, 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, <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]>, >>>> 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 <[email protected]>, >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 6, 2020, 10:22 AM -0500, Gus Heck <[email protected]>, 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> 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) >>>>> >>>>> >>>
