Indexer cluster separate and Searcher cluster separate

Hi all,

Want to try two different clusters sharing same data path (same index). The reason is, one cluster will keep on indexing streaming data. The other cluster will take care of all the searches and aggregations. So if at all the search cluster goes down due to memory hike on heavy aggregations, the data indexing will not get affected .

Tried the same in single server with two nodes. Each nodes has different "" values.
Also set the "node.max_local_storage_nodes: 2" and the "" pointing to same path in both the nodes.

But the problem is, the first started node creates a folder "0" inside the configured "". The secondly started node creates folder "1". So obviously the data indexed by first node is not available to the second node. Tried running the second node with " false". But the problem still persists.

Is this approach possible ? Then what should be configuration so both the nodes will point to same index directory. Is there any other way to handle this scenario other than above mentioned one. ?

Any help/suggestions would heavily appreciated. :slight_smile:

Thanks a lot.

You can't really do that. It's better to have 2 real data nodes that belongs to the same cluster.
Then you can redirect your index operation to the first node and you can run the search requests to the second node and use ?preference=_local parameter which will try to execute the search only on local shards.


Also you can have dedicated client nodes but still the node that holds data will be used for searching.

But, I wonder if you really have an issue or if this is only theorical?

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply. If we run 2 data nodes in the same cluster, if the search node goes down, the shards hold by that node will be unavailable rt? That is affecting the writing and searching both.

Actually i am facing issue in indexing. I was running the ES cluster in two servers. Around 30,000 data per sec is streaming and indexing continously to the cluster. Meantime there are other batch jobs triggering periodically, like every 10 mins, 30 mins, etc, doing ES search and aggregation operations.

Once the cluster is up, the entire flow runs for 3-4 days without any issues. After that i am seeing lot of timeout exceptions in the ES logs. Finally the nodes (either one, sometimes both) crashes due to heap error (heap dump gets created in the configured path) and has to reboot the cluster. After reboot, again another 3-4 days no probz.

Recently i added one more node , so 3 nodes in the same cluster. same data rate. Atleast for 12+ days no issues. But after that the data writing stopped again due to timeout errors. I rebooted the indexing programs, but still they were not able to index. But this time none of the nodes crashed, also the ES search operations was still intact.

I thought the periodical searchs and aggregations if we separate from the writers, the load will be less for writers. So just thought of the possibilty of maintaining two different clusters on same data.

I am using ES version 6.3.1. Each server node is 256 GB RAM and 72 core cpu. I still wonder why after some days the writing performance degraded.

No. Unless you explicitly set the number of replicas for your index to 0.

I still wonder why after some days the writing performance degraded.

How many heap do you have? How many shards? How many indices?

Heap size is set as 32 GB for each node.
Since it is streaming data continously i am creating daily index. Every day midnight the data starts indexing to a new index.
Each index with 8 shards. Yes, as you mentioned the replicas is set to "0".
Around 900 GB is the size of one daily index. But last time the ES throws timeout errors during day time, it was around 70 GB data in that day index.

Also I am running 5 instances of indexer programs per server parallely indexing to the local node. Bulk indexing is being used with a bulk size of 4000.

112 gb per shard is probably too much. We recommend staying under 50gb per shard.
So I'd probably use 16-20 shards per index at index time.

What is the output of:

GET /_cat/health?v
GET /_cat/nodes?v
GET /_cat/indices?v

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply.
Sure i will update the shards count to 18 (so 6 shards per node for each daily index) .


epoch      timestamp cluster          status shards pri relo init unassign pending_tasks max_task_wait_time active_shards_percent
1554553243 17:50:43  clus-test-write  green           3         3    712 712    0    0        0             0                  -                100.0%


ip         heap.percent ram.percent cpu load_1m load_5m load_15m node.role master name           88          58  16   12.05   14.29    14.73 mdi       *      clus-test-write-node-1           86          42   7    9.63      7.75        8.35 mdi       -      clus-test-write-node-2           93          60  12   12.43   12.80    14.02 mdi       -      clus-test-write-node-3


health status index                 uuid                   pri rep docs.count docs.deleted store.size
green  open   wr_in_2019_04_01      OHJtB0dqR8uQt0JZSD7XGg   8   0  786844659            0    772.2gb        772.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_26      HaQVUt5sSuaFMItfgEVzrQ   8   0  717735762            0      688gb          688gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_06      XcRYQEgkRgGQLbeakQ3dHA   8   0  171001764            0    170.3gb        170.3gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_16      cgFaU3MpRjOPhk8grgwg1A   8   0  848441559            0    788.5gb        788.5gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_25      fdNoz015RjSFIwJ8rxC2DQ   8   0  585444957            0    546.1gb        546.1gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_04      I8vDUW68T8Cmr2GqPHmJBg   8   0   98716602            0     87.7gb         87.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_28      ji67B_rASLaFqtsywj_dJg   8   0  368071956            0    339.2gb        339.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_24      c8KKkYkTR_6Ow_j8_74lvg   8   0  525759407            0    501.2gb        501.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_16      Tg-q0OyMRgSAnEL07vQ0Yg   8   0  733893550            0    658.1gb        658.1gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_07      E7BVFB07RbGjWqVQbkKHqQ   8   0  612399945            0    611.6gb        611.6gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_15      OKvgR_DaQ_62tEQ--xJ-2g   8   0  855747046            0    829.7gb        829.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_08      J714RSU-RR-5Djl4oj6i3Q   8   0  612603229            0    576.8gb        576.8gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_28      x7_2dJAMRfGPio44nPwTPg   8   0 1103147718            0        1tb            1tb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_05      PH4MqkuJTKyqQF7EDYNROw   8   0   68814398            0     65.5gb         65.5gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_01      iPYs8lc6TjCKhZWVIbNijQ   8   0  426661793            0    406.6gb        406.6gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_20      Ix2ucLB1Q0iq6JkL5ADEvw   8   0  139402584            0    131.9gb        131.9gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_22      nVA0sDfJRPmLIiVGg1vMRA   8   0  638825042            0    599.8gb        599.8gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_23      1faz8CNmR-Web9O7_gzIOw   8   0  595548849            0    578.2gb        578.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_22      i5CmKaW6T2yr6sD4zt-Dfg   8   0  662460573            0    619.1gb        619.1gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_26      birtPXX6S9-HYLrtAmHqGw   8   0 1120588076            0        1tb            1tb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_03      Qx4RX3rLRPyxTP_8NXvDcQ   8   0  152337877            0    135.5gb        135.5gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_11      daKfzRw7R4WIxrmFeA3mjg   8   0  874401017            0    801.9gb        801.9gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_24      PULbAJJaQsyyyYMRojN7zQ   8   0  447485224            0    405.7gb        405.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_27      dCu7wvlzRhyhMLDsAmI60A   8   0  394166451            0    369.7gb        369.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_18      AuKVNNDGQcuw-MFcCXdVwQ   8   0  785600530            0    756.2gb        756.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_12      _RhoX3sLTp2EOqg2bTTR1A   8   0  846456862            0    776.6gb        776.6gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_14      9XgW8k3gSiidL6W1H-fnRA   8   0  799785523            0    770.8gb        770.8gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_17      f4Fu-JraS9-UIlSxyYpUlg   8   0  491927793            0      473gb          473gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_04_06      7AIetiQzSgivyr6s-r0-tA   8   0  251721353            0    241.1gb        241.1gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_18      1hwKwqaNQ5KIRYkf5cNEWg   8   0  598246946            0    559.6gb        559.6gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_27      ILugbua7Tu698sRrn10gEg   8   0 1086803633            0        1tb            1tb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_17      Q8LUG6FlR1aYSq9SANRWlA   8   0  371035051            0    330.6gb        330.6gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_20      RK2vxu6OTR6Kota_EJpmvg   8   0  613265355            0    573.8gb        573.8gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_13      2i9c7bemQnG0ggJRk2_2-g   8   0  923463353            0    875.4gb        875.4gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_29      gdsAaCgkTrKGagzBE_AkKw   8   0 1111865897            0        1tb            1tb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_19      QUI01vc7SX-0Ep48Zpu7gg   8   0  480594121            0    432.7gb        432.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_23      TPukM9ayTPGkBWiau1eQmw   8   0  494078092            0    447.8gb        447.8gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_31      P3uJiSvvRUOySV_9tnCuMQ   8   0  596493086            0    567.7gb        567.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_09      87joIoqORX-77kfvX9rCXA   8   0  745600720            0    704.2gb        704.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_02      krbpnDYrSaWUWfphpz1Fdw   8   0  332391416            0    311.7gb        311.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_04_04      6YQPvKGJR8-uDfWW2egSBQ   8   0  612276383            0    578.3gb        578.3gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_04_03      lne1EmWiSXus2Eofo--mUg   8   0   47735900            0     47.3gb         47.3gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_30      vk4YCNSLSi2H_mgsGw1oxw   8   0 1093685353            0        1tb            1tb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_10      4kdeQDLkRpmfGvRyIS9vBw   8   0  658052089            0    624.7gb        624.7gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_19      -5tSTjylST6QcwCyyYMA8Q   8   0  259249061            0    240.8gb        240.8gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_03_25      XSsN_pBZQKC3oREZUhLaLw   8   0  991991936            0    922.2gb        922.2gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_04_05      Y9AFZOa6TNim4NVEHc9AgQ   8   0  925187237            0    884.3gb        884.3gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_04_02      1d45Iv1-R6KemOgLCfZqyw   8   0  631105735            0    621.3gb        621.3gb
green  open   wr_in_2019_02_21      Q_VkBmpJRQ-NsdS8kFREfQ   8   0  532769275            0      491gb          491gb

Currently i set the "refresh_interval" : "60s" in the template. So the daily index is getting created with this configuration. Is this ok ? Bcz by default the value is 1 second.
Increasing to a higher number, say "180s" will help in stable indexing ?

Increasing that number is always good.
Note that in 7.0 you don't really care about it anymore as Elasticsearch is smart enough to do refresh when it's really needed.

May be you should consider rolling indices for your use case?

May I suggest you look at the following resources about sizing:


This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.