You will pay some in performance, but it's certainly not bad practice. It's a good choice for setting up so that you can scale later. You just have to do some testing to make sure it fits your requirments. The Collections API even has built in support for this - you can specify more shards than nodes and it will overload a node. See the documentation. Later you can start up a new replica on another machine and kill/remove the original.
- Mark On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:10 PM, Chris Simpson <chrissimpson1...@outlook.com> wrote: > Dear Lucene / Solr Community- > > I recently posted this question on Stackoverflow, but it doesnt seem to be > going too far. Then I found this mailing list and was hoping perhaps to have > more luck: > > Question- > > If I plan on holding 7TB of data in a Solr Cloud, is it bad practice to begin > with 1 server holding 100 shards and then begin populating the collection > where once the size grew, each shard ultimately will be peeled off into its > own dedicated server (holding ~70GB ea with its own dedicated resources and > replicas)? > > That is, I would start the collection with 100 shards locally, then as data > grew, I could peel off one shard at a time and give it its own server -- > dedicated w/plenty of resources. > > Is this okay to do -- or would I somehow incur a massive bottleneck > internally by putting that many shards in 1 server to start with while data > was low? > > Thank you. > Chris > >
