I don't know a ton about SolrCloud but for our setup and my limited understanding of it is that you start to bleed operational and non-operational aspects together which I am not comfortable doing (i.e. software load balancing). Also adding ZooKeeper to the mix is yet another thing to install, setup, monitor, maintain etc which doesn't add any value above and beyond what we have setup already.
For example, we have a hardware load balancer that can do the actual load balancing of requests among the slaves and taking slaves in and out of rotation either on demand or if it's down. We've placed a virtual IP on top of our multiple masters so that we have redundancy there. While we have multiple cores, the data volume is large enough to fit on one node so we aren't at the data volume necessary for sharding our indices. I suspect that if we had a sufficiently large dataset that couldn't fit on one box SolrCloud is perfect but when you can fit on one box, why add more complexity? Please correct me if I'm wrong for I'd like to better understand this! On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:53 AM, rulinma <ruli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am doing research on SolrCloud. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poll-SolrCloud-vs-Master-Slave-usage-tp4042931p4043582.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
