It sounds like the 11th node would have to have a large disk with all indices. Or perhaps you'd keep copies of all your indices elsewhere, and would pull the right one in when you see which node you need to replace.
Otis ----- Original Message ---- From: Slava Imeshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: general@lucene.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:34:07 PM Subject: Re: Infrastructure for large Lucene index Doug, --- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the availability of this approach doesn't scale very cleanly though ... if > > any one box in either cluster goes down, the entire cluster becomes > > unusable. > > A cost-effective variation works as follows: if you have 10 indexes and > 11 nodes, then you keep one node as a spare. When any of the 10 active > nodes fail, the 11th resumes its duties. While the 11th node is > launching you search only 9 out of the 10 indexes, so failover is not > entirely seamless, but it's a lot cheaper than mirroring all nodes. How does the 11th know what index it has to bring up? In other words, where would it get the lost index? Slava
