Hello Ted. We have a similar requirement to deploy Solr across 2 DCs. In our case, the DCs are connected via fibre optic.
We managed to deploy a single SolrCloud cluster across multiple DCs without any major issue (see links below). The whole set-up is described in the following articles: - http://menelic.com/2015/11/21/deploying-solrcloud-across-multiple-data-centers-dc/ - http://menelic.com/2015/12/04/deploying-solrcloud-across-multiple-data-centers-dc-performance/ - http://menelic.com/2015/12/05/allowing-solrj-cloudsolrclient-to-have-preferred-replica-for-query-operations/ - Here is the main issue we had to deal with: http://menelic.com/2015/12/30/zookeeper-shutdown-leader-reason-not-sufficient-followers-synced-only-synced-with-sids/ I believe that if your DCs are well connected, you can have a single SolrCloud cluster spanning across multiple DCs. Arcadius. On 10 February 2016 at 04:15, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote: > I agree. If the system updates synchronously, then you are in two-phase > commit land. If you have a persistent store that each index can track, then > things are good. > > wunder > Walter Underwood > wun...@wunderwood.org > http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > > > > On 2/9/2016 5:48 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: > >> Updating two systems in parallel gets into two-phase commit, instantly. > So you need a persistent pool of updates that both clusters pull from. > > > > My indexing system does exactly what I have suggested for tedsolr -- it > > updates multiple copies of my index in parallel. My data source is > MySQL. > > > > For each copy, information about the last successful update is > > separately tracked, so if one of the index copies goes offline, the > > other stays current. When the offline system comes back, it will be > > updated from the saved position, and will eventually have the same > > information as the system that did not go offline. > > > > As far as two-phase commit goes, that would make it so that neither copy > > of the index would stay current if one of them went offline. In most > > situations I can think of, that's not really very useful. > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > > > -- Arcadius Ahouansou Menelic Ltd | Information is Power M: 07908761999 W: www.menelic.com ---
