I'm not missing the point of the query coordinator, but I actually didn't realize that an empty Solr node would forward the top-level request onward instead of just being the query controller itself? That actually seems like a bug vs. a feature, IMO any node that receives the top-level query should just be the coordinator, what stops it?
Anyway, it sounds to me like you guys have your minds made up regardless of feedback. Btw ~ I only mentioned the Zookeeper part b/c it's in your SIP as a specific role, not sure why you took that as me wanting to discuss the embedded ZK in your SIP? On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:13 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > Here are my responses inline. > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 3:22 AM Timothy Potter <thelabd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm just not convinced this feature is even needed and the SIP is not >> convincing that "There is no proper alternative today." > > > There are no proper alternatives today, just hacks. On 8x, we have two > different deprecated frameworks to stop nodes from being placed on a node (1. > rule based replica placement, 2. autoscaling framework). On 9x, we have a new > autoscaling framework, which I don't even think is fully implemented. And, > there's definitely no way to have a node act as a query coordinator without > having data on it. > >> >> >> 1) Just b/c Elastic and Vespa have a concept of node roles, doesn't >> mean Solr needs this. > > > Solr needs this. Elastic has such concepts is a coincidence, and also means > we have an opportunity to catch up with them; they have these concepts for a > reason. > >> >> Also, some of Elastic's roles overlap with >> concepts Solr already has in a different form, i.e data_hot sounds >> like NRT and data_warm sounds a lot like our Pull Replica Type > > > I think that is beyond the scope of this SIP. > >> >> >> 2) You can achieve the "coordinator" role with auto-scaling rules >> pre-9.x and with the AffinityPlacementPlugin (heck, it even has a node >> type built in: >> .requestNodeSystemProperty(AffinityPlacementConfig.NODE_TYPE_SYSPROP). >> Simply build your replica placement rules such that no replicas land >> on "coordinator" nodes. And you can route queries using node.sysprop >> already using shards.preference. > > > I think you missed the whole point of the query coordinator. Please refer to > this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15715. > Let me summarize the main difference between what (I think) you refer to and > what is proposed in SOLR-15715. > > With your suggestion, we'll have a node that doesn't host any replicas. And > you suggest queries landing on such nodes be routed using shards.preference? > Well, in such a case, these queries will be forwarded/proxied to a random > node hosting a replica of the collection and that node then acts as the > coordinator. This situation is no better than sending the query directly to > that particular node. > > What is proposed in SOLR-15715 is a query aggregation functionality. There > will be pseudo replicas (aware of the configset) on this coordinator node > that handle the request themselves, sends shard requests to data hosting > replicas, collects responses and merges them, and sends back to the user. > This merge step is usually extremely memory intensive, and it would be good > to serve these off stateless nodes (that host no data). > >> >> >> 3) Dedicated overseer role? I thought we were removing the overseer?!? >> Also, we already have the ability to run the overseer on specific >> nodes w/o a new framework, so this doesn't really convince me we need >> a new framework. > > > There's absolutely no change proposed to the "overseer" role. What users need > on production clusters are nodes dedicated for overseer operations, and for > that the current "overseer" role suffices, together with some functionality > to not place replicas on such nodes. > >> >> >> 4) We will indeed need to decide which nodes host embedded Zookeeper's >> but I'd argue that solution hasn't been designed entirely and we >> probably don't need a formal node role framework to determine which >> nodes host embedded ZKs. Moreover, embedded ZK seems more like a small >> cluster thing and anyone running a large cluster will probably have a >> dedicated ZK ensemble as they do today. The node role thing seems like >> it's intended for large clusters and my gut says few will use embedded >> ZK for large clusters. > > > This SIP is not the right place for this discussion. There's a separate SIP > for this. > >> >> >> 5) You can also achieve a lot of "node role" functionality in query >> routing using the shards.preference parameter. >> > > That doesn't solve the purpose behind > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15715. > >> >> At the very least, the SIP needs to list specific use cases that >> require this feature that are not achievable with the current features >> before getting bogged down in the impl. details. > > > The coordinator role is the biggest motivation for introducing the concept of > roles. However, in addition to what is proposed in SOLR-15715, a coordinator > node can later on also be used as a node for users to run streaming > expressions on, do bulk indexing on (impl details for this to come later, > don't want distraction here). > >> >> >> Tim >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:20 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I think there are things not yet accounted for. Time I spent yesterday is >> > biting me today. Pls give a couple days. >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey Ishan, >> >> >> >> I appreciate you writing up the SIP! Here's some notes/questions I >> >> had as I was reading through your writeup and this mail thread. >> >> ("----" separators between thoughts, hopefully that helps.) >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> I'll add my vote to what Jan, Gus, Ilan, and Houston already >> >> suggested: roles should default to "all-on". I see the downsides >> >> you're worried about with that approach (esp. around 'overseer'), but >> >> they may be mitigatable, at least in part. >> >> >> >> > [mail thread] 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 >> >> >> >> Sure, if roles can only be specified at startup. But that may be a >> >> self-imposed constraint. >> >> >> >> An API to change a node's roles would remove the need for a restart >> >> and make it easy for users to affect the semantics they want. You >> >> decided you want a dedicated overseer N nodes into your cluster >> >> deployment? Deploy node 'N' with the 'overseer', and toggle the >> >> overseer role off on the remainder. >> >> >> >> Now, I understand that you don't want roles to change at runtime, but >> >> I haven't seen you get much into "why", beyond saying "it is very >> >> risky to have nodes change roles while they are up and running." Can >> >> you expand a bit on the risks you're worried about? If you're >> >> explicit about them here maybe someone can think of a clever way to >> >> address them? >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> Obviously "roles" refer to much bigger chunks of functionality than >> >> usual, so in a sense defaulting roles on is scarier. But in a sense >> >> you're describing something that's an inherent part of software >> >> releases. Releases expose new features that are typically on by >> >> default. A new default-on role in 9.1 might hurt a user, but there's >> >> no fundamental difference between that and a change to backups or >> >> replication or whatever in the same release. >> >> >> >> I don't mean to belittle the difference in scope - I get your concern. >> >> But IMO this is something to address with good release notes and >> >> documentation. Designing for admins who don't do even cursory >> >> research before an upgrade ties both our hands behind our back as a >> >> project. >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> > [SIP] Internal representation in ZK ... Implementation details like >> >> > these can be fleshed out in the PR >> >> >> >> IMO this is important enough to flush out as part of the SIP, at least >> >> in broad strokes. It affects backcompat, SolrJ client design, etc. >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> > [SIP] GET /api/cluster/roles?node=node1 >> >> >> >> Woohoo - way to include a v2 API definition! >> >> >> >> AFAIR, the v2 API has a /nodes path defined - I wonder whether "GET >> >> /nodes/someNode/roles" wouldn't be a more intuitive endpoint for the >> >> "get the roles this node has" functionality. Though I leave that for >> >> your consideration. >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> Looking forward to your responses and seeing the SIP progress! It's a >> >> really cool, promising idea IMO. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:21 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> >> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Are there any unaddressed outstanding concerns that we should hold up >> >> > the SIP for? >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 1 Nov, 2021, 10:31 pm Ishan Chattopadhyaya, >> >> > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I am not asking you to implement every possible role of course :). >> >> >> > As a note I know a company that is running an entire separate >> >> >> > cluster to offload and better serve highlighting on a subset of >> >> >> > large docs, so YES I think there are people who may want such fine >> >> >> > grained control. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cool, I think we can discuss adding any additional roles (for >> >> >> highlighting?) on a case by case basis at a later point. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:25 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> >> >> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Boiling it down the idea I'm proposing is that roles required for >> >> >>> > back compatibility get explicitly added on startup, if not by the >> >> >>> > user then by the code. This is more flexible than assuming that no >> >> >>> > role means every role, because then every new feature that has a >> >> >>> > role will end up on legacy clusters which are also not back >> >> >>> > compatible. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> +1, I totally agree. I even said so, when I said: "This is why I was >> >> >>> advocating that 1) we assume the "data" as a default, 2) not assume >> >> >>> overseer to be implicitly defined (because of the way overseer role >> >> >>> is written today), 3) not assume any future roles to be true by >> >> >>> default." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> So, basically, I'm proposing that the "roles required for back >> >> >>> compatibility" (that should be explicitly added on startup) be just >> >> >>> the ["data"] role, and not the "overseer" role (due to the way >> >> >>> overseer role is currently defined, i.e. it is "preferred overseer"). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:19 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Very sorry don't mean to sound offended, Frustrated yes offended no >> >> >>>> :)... the most difficult thing about communication is the illusion >> >> >>>> it has occurred :) >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> If you read back just a few emails you'll see where I talk about >> >> >>>> roles being applied on startup. Boiling it down the idea I'm >> >> >>>> proposing is that roles required for back compatibility get >> >> >>>> explicitly added on startup, if not by the user then by the code. >> >> >>>> This is more flexible than assuming that no role means every role, >> >> >>>> because then every new feature that has a role will end up on legacy >> >> >>>> clusters which are also not back compatible. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> There are points where I said all roles rather than back >> >> >>>> compatibility roles because I was thinking about back compatibility >> >> >>>> specifically, but you can't know that if I don't say that can you :). >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:39 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> >> >>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> > If you read more closely, my way can provide full back >> >> >>>>> > compatibility. To say or imply it doesn't isn't helping. Perhaps >> >> >>>>> > you need to re-read? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I understand e-mails are frustrating, and I'm trying my best. >> >> >>>>> Please don't be offended, and kindly point me to the exact part you >> >> >>>>> want me to re-read. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:05 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:22 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> >> >>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> > 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. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> If you read more closely, my way can provide full back >> >> >>>>>> compatibility. To say or imply it doesn't isn't helping. Perhaps >> >> >>>>>> you need to re-read? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> > 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. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I am not asking you to implement every possible role of course :). >> >> >>>>>> As a note I know a company that is running an entire separate >> >> >>>>>> cluster to offload and better serve highlighting on a subset of >> >> >>>>>> large docs, so YES I think there are people who may want such fine >> >> >>>>>> grained control. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> > 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? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Specifically imagine the case where there are 100 nodes: >> >> >>>>>> 1-100 ==> DATA >> >> >>>>>> 101-103 ==> OVERSEER >> >> >>>>>> 104-106 ==> ZOOKEEPER >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> But you won't have 3 overseers... you'll want only one of those to >> >> >>>>>> be providing overseer functionality and the other two to be >> >> >>>>>> capable, but not providing (so that if the current overseer goes >> >> >>>>>> down a new one can be assigned). >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Then you decide you'd ike 5 Zookeepers. You start nodes 107-108 >> >> >>>>>> with that role, but you probably want to ensure that zookeepers >> >> >>>>>> require some sort of command for them to actually join the >> >> >>>>>> zookeeper cluster (i.e. /admin?action=ZKADD&nodes=node107,node18) >> >> >>>>>> ... to do that the nodes need to be up. But oh look I typoed >> >> >>>>>> 108... we want that to fail... how? because 18 does not have the >> >> >>>>>> capability to become a zookeeper. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> 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 >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >> >> >>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >> >> >>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >> > http://www.the111shift.com (play) >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
