Thank you, Susheel, for the quick response. So, that means that when I create a new collection, it shards will be newly created at each node, right? Thus, if I have two collections with numShards=38, maxShardsPerNode=2 and replicationFactor=2 on my 38 nodes, then this would result in each node "hosting" 4 shards (two from each collection).
If this is correct, I have two follow up questions: 1) As regards naming of the shards: Is using the same naming for the shards o.k. in this constellation? I.e. does it create trouble to have e.g. "Shard001", "Shard002", etc. in collection1 and "Shard001", "Shard002", etc. as well in collection2? 2) Performance: In my current single collection setup, I have 2 shards per node. After creating the second collection, there will be 4 shards per node. Do I have to edit the RAM per node value (raise the -m parameter when starting the node)? In my case, I am quite sure that the collections will never be queried simultaneously. So will the "running but idle" collection slow me down? Johannes -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Susheel Kumar [mailto:susheel2...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. August 2017 17:36 An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Betreff: Re: SolrCloud indexing -- 2 collections, 2 indexes, sharing the same nodes possible? Yes, absolutely. You can create as many as collections you need (like you would create table in relational world). On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Johannes Knaus <kn...@mpdl.mpg.de> wrote: > I have a working SolrCloud-Setup with 38 nodes with a collection > spanning over these nodes with 2 shards per node and replication > factor 2 and a router field. > > Now I got some new data for indexing which has the same structure and > size as my existing index in the described collection. > However, although it has the same structure the new data to be indexed > should not be mixed with the old data. > > Do I have create another 38 new nodes and a new collection and index > the new data or is there a better / more efficient way I could use the > existing nodes? > Is it possible that the 2 collections could share the 38 nodes without > the indexes being mixed? > > Thanks for your help. > > Johannes >
