Thanks! And yes, the replica belongs to a different shard - not the same data.
-Vinay On 19 June 2014 11:21, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> wrote: > Vinay Pothnis [poth...@gmail.com] wrote: > > *"... Let's say that you have a Solr index size of 8GB. If your OS, > Solr's > > Java heap, and all other running programs require 4GB of memory, then > > an ideal memory size for that server is at least 12GB ..."* > > > So, when we say "index size" does it include ALL the replicas or just one > > of the replica? Say for example, if the solr instance had 2 replicas each > > of size 8GB, should we consider 16GB as our index size or just 8GB - for > > the above index-ram-ratio consideration? > > 16GB, according to the above principle. Enough RAM to hold all index data > on storage. > > Two things though, > > 1) If you have replicas of the same data on the same machine, I hope that > you have them on separate physical drives. If not, it is just wasted disk > cache with no benefits. > > 2) The general advice is only really usable when we're either talking > fairly small indexes on spinning drives or there is a strong need for the > absolute lowest latency possible. As soon as we scale up and do not have > copious amounts of money, solid state drives provides much better bang for > the buck than a spinning drives + RAM combination. > > - Toke Eskildsen >
