I agree with the goals - having a replication module that was more
integrated with Solr and worked in Windows would be nice.

The details are still a bit fuzzy though... I'm not sure if SolrJ &
BinaryResponseWriter should be used as the overhead when transferring
gigabytes of files would probably be significant.  One would probably
want to transfer the file in chunks also...  a single gigabyte HTTP
request is probably not the best idea.

-Yonik

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള്‍ नोब्ळ्
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi ,
>  The current replication strategy in solr involves shell scripts . The
>  following are the drawbacks
>  *  It does not work with windows
>  * Replication works as a separate piece not integrated with solr.
>  * Cannot control replication from solr admin/JMX
>  * Each operation requires manual telnet to the host
>
>  Doing the replication within java code has the following advantages
>  * Platform independence
>  * Manual steps can be completely eliminated. Everything can be driven
>  from solrconfig.xml .
>  ** Just put in the url of the master in the slaves that should be good
>  enough to enable replication. Other things like frequency of
>  snapshoot/snappull can also be configured
>  * Start/stop can be triggered from solr/admin or JMX
>  * Can get the status/progress while replication is going on
>  * No need to have a login into the machine
>
>  The implementation can be done as two components
>  * A SolrEventListener which does a snapshoot . Same as done by the script
>  * A ReplicationHandler which can act as a server to dish out the index
>  snapshots (in the master)
>  ** In the slave the same handler can poll at regular intervals and if
>  there is a new snapshot fetch the index over http (it can use
>  solrj+BinaryReponseWriter)
>  * The same Handler can do a snap install
>  * The Handler may expose all the operations over a REST interface or JMX
>  * It may also show the current state of the master index through the console
>
>  What do you think?
>
>  --
>  --Noble Paul
>

Reply via email to