Erick is right, you have been put in a terrible position. You need to get agreement, in writing, that it is OK for search to go down when one server is out of service. This might be for scheduled maintenance or even a config update. When one server is down, search is down, period.
This requirement is like choosing a truck, but insisting that there is only budget for three tires. You must, must, must communicate the risks associated with a two-server SolrCloud cluster. wunder On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:10 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > bq: but we have limitation on the number of servers that we can use due to > budget > concerns (limit is 2) > > really, really, really push back to your project managers on this. So what > you need 3 machines for a ZooKeeper quorum? The needs of ZK are quite > light, they don't need a powerful machine. Your managers are saying "for > want of spending $1,000 on a machine, which we will waste 10 times that > paying engineers to set up an old-style system, we can't go with > SolrCloud". You can run the ZooKeeper instances in a separate JVM on your > two servers and have a cheap machine running ZK for the third instance if > necessary. > > Another rant finished..... > > Erick > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, kondamudims <kondamud...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Erick, >> Thanks a lot for your explanation. We initially considered Solr Cloud but >> we >> have limitation on the number of servers that we can use due to budget >> concerns (limit is 2) Solr Cloud requires minimum 3. I have tried out the >> solution you suggested and so far its going well and we are not doing self >> polling concept. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-Master-Slave-Repeater-with-Load-balancer-tp4103363p4105017.html >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> -- Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org
