Yes, I believe Noble is working on this. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11985
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > Ok, get the meaning of preferences. > > Would there be a way to write a generic rule that would suggest moving > shards to obtain balance, without specifying absolute core counts? I.e. if > you have three nodes > A: 3 cores > B: 5 cores > C: 3 cores > > Then that rule would suggest two moves to end up with 4 cores on all three > (unless that would violate disk space or load limits)? > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > > > 12. jun. 2018 kl. 08:10 skrev Shalin Shekhar Mangar < > shalinman...@gmail.com>: > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Comments inline: > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:19 AM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com > <mailto:jan....@cominvent.com>> wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I'm trying to have Autoscaling move a shard to another node after > manually > >> splitting. > >> We have two nodes, one has a shard1 and the other node is empty. > >> > >> After SPLITSHARD you have > >> > >> * shard1 (inactive) > >> * shard1_0 > >> * shard1_1 > >> > >> For autoscaling we have the {"minimize" : "cores"} cluster preference > >> active. Because of that I'd expect that Autoscaling would suggest to > move > >> e.g. shard1_1 to the other (empty) node, but it doesn't. Then I create a > >> rule just to test {"cores": "<2", "node": "#ANY"}, but still no > >> suggestions. Not until I delete the inactive shard1, then it suggests to > >> move one of the two remaining shards to the other node. > >> > >> So my two questions are > >> 1. Is it by design that inactive shards "count" wrt #cores? > >> I understand that it consumes disk but it is not active otherwise, > >> so one could argue that it should not be counted in core/replica > rules? > >> > > > > Today, inactive slices also count towards the number of cores -- though > > technically correct, it is probably an oversight. > > > > > >> 2. Why is there no suggestion to move a shard due to the "minimize > cores" > >> reference itself? > >> > > > > The /autoscaling/suggestions end point only suggests if there are policy > > violations. Preferences such as minimize:cores are more of a sorting > order > > so they aren't really being violated. After you add the rule, the > framework > > still cannot give a suggestion that satisfies your rule. This is because > > even if shard1_1 is moved to node2, node1 still has shard1 and shard1_0. > So > > the system ends up not suggesting anything. You should get a suggestion > if > > you add a third node to the cluster though. > > > > Also see SOLR-11997 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11997 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11997>> which > > will tell users that a suggestion could not be returned because we cannot > > satisfy the policy. There are a slew of other improvements to suggestions > > planned that will return suggestions even when there are no policy > > violations. > > > > > >> > >> -- > >> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > >> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com <http://www.cominvent.com/> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. > > -- Regards, Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
