8.9 has just been released, so if there is an 8.10 then it will likely be 1-3 months out based on historical trends. No promises or guarantees here, of course.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 3:47 PM Stephen Lewis Bianamara < stephen.bianam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I'm happy to say that Wei's patch has been merged to mainline and 8_x (for > 8.10) by Timothy Potter. Thank you both! > > My next curiosity is of course when Solr 8.10 will be available :) > > I read online of course that "no releases are scheduled in advance", but as > I am quite looking forward to this change I am hoping someone can let me > know any information you can share. > > Thanks! > Stephen > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:19 AM Stephen Lewis Bianamara < > stephen.bianam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is all great info. Thanks for the patch Wei! It looks reasonable to > > me and it's exciting to hear about your results. I agree that your patch > + > > tlog looks like a good solution at a design level. > > > > Now onto the question of the problem to solve. Bram and Wei cover it > > well. The goal at a high level is to better divide the work, as well as > > decouple operational factors, between read and write replicas. > > > > Right now, I'm interested in an architecture with a shared collections > > with 3 replicas per shard, where any one of them may become the leader as > > fault tolerance, which I believe tlog plus Wei's patch fits perfectly. > > This also doesn't work with Dave's suggestion, though it could be useful > > for slightly different setups. > > > > What are the next steps on integrating Wei's patch into main-line for > > official release? > > > > Best, > > Stephen > > > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 4:46 PM Wei <weiwan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> We did some explorations on excluding reads from the leader in a TLOG + > >> PULL cloud. When updates are heavy we do observer query throughput and > >> latency improvement. Added the patch we have bee testing > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13026792/SOLR-15472.patch > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:43 AM Bram Van Dam <bram.van...@intix.eu> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On 11/06/2021 00.28, Walter Underwood wrote: > >> > > Are you trying to send queries to less loaded machines? If so, this > >> > won’t do that. > >> > > Leaders only do a little bit more work than followers. All indexing > >> > processing is local > >> > > and that is most of the CPU usage. > >> > > >> > I suspect that depends on the type of replica. > >> > > >> > Reducing the load on leaders seems like a valuable feature. We've > >> > observed cases where a high query load on leaders caused it to become > >> > unresponsive, resulting in a cascade of failures, eventually rendering > >> > an entire cluster unusable. > >> > > >> > In fact, it would also be useful to be able to direct certain queries > >> > *only* to leaders when you know that replicas are lagging behind. > >> > > >> > - Bram > >> > > >> > > >
