> > Also, we should not put so much emhasis on "nodes without roles defined" as > > if that should be a common way of starting nodes in a huge cluster. > > Jan, the need to tackle "nodes without roles defined" separately is to cater > to those users who do not use the roles functionality; we need to provide a > logical way for such users to opt into the roles feature. Hence, it is > important to assume implicit defaults of roles for such nodes.
I disagree. If I'm an 8.x user with a 5-node cluster, with no roles, then all my nodes are eligible to take on any role, such as index, search, aggregate, streaming, sql, embedded zk, oversser etc (although roles are not a concept in 8.x). When that user upgrades to 9.0, without considering roles, they start all five nodes without roles, and every node will be ALLOWed to assume all roles, so there are no surprises with overseers not starting or anything. Another user with a 100 node cluster who today have three overseer nodes that they have shielded from having data by specifying createNodeSet manually or by other means, can choose to adopt rhe role system, and define tree dedicated nodes with the overseer role but without the data role, and they will get exactly what they tried to achieve originally. Should they later wish to start using role XYZ releast in 9.x, then they wil prepare for that during the upgrade by starting a few nodes with role=XYZ and everything is explicit and no magic. Jan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
