> Positive - They denote the existence of a capability
Agree, the SIP already reflects this.
> Absolute - Absence/Presence binary identification of a capability; no
implications, no assumptions
Disagree, we need backcompat handling on nodes running without any roles.
There has to be an implicit assumption as to what roles are those nodes
assumed to have. My proposal is that only the "data" role be assumed, but
not the "overseer" role. For any future roles ("coordinator", "zookeeper"
etc.), this decision as to what absence of any role implies should be left
to the implementation of that future role. Documentation should reflect
clearly about these implicit assumptions.
> Focused - Do one thing per role
Agree. However, I disagree with ideas where "query analysis" has a role of
its own. Where would that lead us to? Separate roles for nodes that do
"faceting" or "spell correction" etc.? But anyway, that is for discussion
when we add future roles. This is beyond this SIP.
> Accessible - It should be dead simple to determine the members of a
role, avoid parsing blobs of json, avoid calculating implications, avoid
consulting other resources after listing nodes with the role
Agree. I'm open to any implementation details that make it easy. There
should be a reasonable API to return these node roles, with ability to
filter by role or filter by node.
> Independent - One role should not require other roles to be present
Do we need to have this hard and fast requirement upfront? There might be
situations where this is desirable. I feel we can discuss on a case by case
basis whenever a future role is added.
> Persistent - roles should not be lost across reboot
Agree.
> Immutable - roles should not change while the node is running
Agree
> Lively - A node with a capability may not be presently providing that
capability.
I don't understand, can you please elaborate?
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:30 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ilan: A node not having node.roles defined should be assumed to have all
> roles. Not only data. I don't see a reason to special case this one or any
> role.
> > Gus: There should be no "assumptions" Nothing to figure out. A node has
> a role or not. For back compatibility reasons, all roles would be assumed
> on startup if none specified.
> > Jan: No role == all roles. Explicit list of roles = exactly those roles.
>
> Problem with this approach is mainly to do with backcompat.
>
> *1. Overseer backcompat:*
> If we don't make any modifications to how overseer works and adopt this
> approach (as quoted), then imagine this situation:
>
> Solr1-100: No roles param (assumed to be "data,overseer").
> Solr101: -Dnode.roles=overseer (intention: dedicated overseer)
>
> User wants this node Solr101 to be a dedicated overseer, but for that to
> happen, he/she would need to restart all the data nodes with
> -Dnode.roles=data. This will cause unnecessary disruption to running
> clusters where a dedicated overseer is needed. Keep in mind, if a user
> needs a dedicated overseer, he's likely in an emergency situation and
> restarting the whole cluster might not be viable for him/her.
>
> *2. Future roles might not be compatible with this "assumed to have all
> roles" idea:*
> Take the proposed "zookeeper" role for example. Today, regular nodes are
> not supposed to have embedded ZK running on them. By introducing this
> artificial limitation ("assumed to have all roles"), we constrain adoption
> of all future roles to necessarily require a full cluster restart.
>
> Keep in mind newer Solr versions can introduce new capabilities and roles.
> Imagine we have a role that is defined in a new Solr version (and there's
> functionality to go with that role), and user upgrades to that version.
> However, his/her nodes all were started with no node.roles param. Hence, if
> those nodes are "assumed to have all roles", then just by virtue of
> upgrading to this new version, new capabilities will be turned on for the
> entire cluster, whether or not the user opted for such a capability. This
> is totally undesirable.
>
> > Gus: I actually don't want a coordinator to do more work, I would prefer
> small focused roles with names that accurately describe their function. In
> that light, COORDINATOR might be too nebulous. How about AGREGATOR role?
> (what I was thinking of would better be called a QUERY_ANALYSIS role)
>
> If you want to do specific things like query analysis or query aggregation
> or bulk indexing etc, all of those can be done on COORDINATOR nodes (as is
> the case in ElasticSearch). Having tens of of " small focused roles"
> defined as first class concepts would be confusing to the user. As a remedy
> to your situation where you want the coordinator role to also do
> query-analysis for shards, one possible solution is to send such a query to
> a coordinator node with a parameter like "coordinator.query_analysis=true",
> and then the coordinator, instead of blindly hitting remote shards, also
> does some extra work on behalf of the shards.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:01 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > If we make collections role-aware for example (replicas of that
>> collection can only be
>> > placed on nodes with a specific role, in addition to the other role
>> based constraints),
>> > the set of roles should be user extensible and not fixed.
>> > If collections are not role aware, the constraints introduced by roles
>> apply to all collections
>> > equally which might be insufficient if a user needs for example a
>> heavily used collection to
>> > only be placed on more powerful nodes.
>>
>> I feel node roles and role-aware collections are orthogonal topics. What
>> you describe above can be achieved by the autoscaling+replica placement
>> framework where the placement plugins take the node roles as one of the
>> inputs.
>>
>> > It does impact the design from early on: the set of roles need to be
>> expandable by a user
>> > by creating a collection with new roles for example (consumed by
>> placement plugins) and be
>> > able to start nodes with new (arbitrary) roles. Should such roles
>> follow some naming syntax to
>> > differentiate them from built in roles? To be able to fail on typos on
>> roles - that otherwise can be
>> > crippling and hard to debug. This implies in any case that the current
>> design can't assume all
>> > roles are known at compile time or define them in a Java enum.
>>
>> I think this should be achieved by something different from roles.
>> Something like node *labels* (user defined) which can then be used in a
>> replica placement plugin to assign replicas. I see roles as more closely
>> associated with kinds of functionality a node is designated for. Therefore,
>> I feel that replica placements and user defined node labels is out of scope
>> for this SIP. It can be added later in a separate SIP, without being at
>> odds with this proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:42 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 1. nov. 2021 kl. 14:46 skrev Ilan Ginzburg <ilans...@gmail.com>:
>>> > A node not having node.roles defined should be assumed to have all
>>> roles. Not only data. I don't see a reason to special case this one or any
>>> role.
>>>
>>> +1, make it simple and transparent. No role == all roles. Explicit list
>>> of roles = exactly those roles.
>>>
>>> > (Gus) See my comment above, but maybe preference is something handled
>>> as a feature of the role rather than via role designation?
>>>
>>> Yea, we always need an overseer, so that feature can decide to use its
>>> list of nodes as a preference if it so chooses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside: I think it makes it easier if we always prefix Solr env.vars and
>>> sys.props with "SOLR_" or "solr.", i.e. -Dsolr.node.roles=foo. That way we
>>> can get away from having to have explicit code in bin/solr, bin/solr.cmd
>>> and SolrCLI to manage every single property. Instead we can parse all ENVs
>>> and Props with the solr prefix in our bootstrap code. And we can by
>>> convention allow e.g. docker run -e SOLR_NODE_ROLES=foo solr:9 and it would
>>> be the same ting...
>>>
>>> Jan
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
>>>
>>>
