Dear Stavros, I could not verify what you said at the backend. What I saw at the backend was almost the same with the frontend. There was no indication in the log file that the getSummary method was intrigued. I also looked into the source code of the driver, for each query it sent a http request to the backend. However, the response may not necessarily include the contents in its message body. Could you refer me to the logs where you see the detailed contents for each query?
2012-10-22 10:03:47,995 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:47,996 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 40 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:47,997 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:47,997 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 80 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:47,997 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:47,997 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 160 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:47,998 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,037 INFO searcher.NutchBean - searching for 20 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,038 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 40 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:48,038 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,038 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 80 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:48,039 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,039 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 160 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:48,040 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,041 INFO searcher.NutchBean - searching for 20 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,042 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 40 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:48,042 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,042 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 80 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:48,043 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits 2012-10-22 10:03:48,043 INFO searcher.NutchBean - re-searching for 160 raw hits, query: personal "at a" 2012-10-22 10:03:48,044 INFO searcher.NutchBean - found 1 raw hits Best Hailong On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Hailong Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Stavros, > > Thank you very much for your reply. I will go through that log right away. > > Best > > Hailong > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Volos Stavros <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear Hailong, >> >> The frontend will ask the summary for the top documents. A backend node >> will receive a getSummary request for every top document it owns. You can >> go through the logs of the backend node and verify that the node does >> receive getSummary requests. >> >> Regards, >> -Stavros. >> ________________________________________ >> From: Hailong Yang [[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:38 AM >> To: Volos Stavros >> Cc: [email protected]; Lingjia Tang; Jason Mars >> Subject: Re: How to fit the index into the memory for the web search >> benchmark >> >> Dear Stavros, >> >> I am confused why we need to bring the segments into memory. I examined >> the log file from the front end server which recorded the queries sent to >> and responses received from the nutch server. The log file showed the nutch >> server only replied how many hits were found in the crawled dataset without >> being asked for the details of the page contents. So that means when >> orchestrating the searching, the object NutchBean never needs to call the >> method getSummary that accesses the segments to retrieve the page contents. >> That is also to say we don't need to care about whether the size of the >> segments could be able to fit into the memory for this specific web search >> workload in CloudSuite, right? Please Correct me if I am wrong. >> >> Best >> >> Hailong >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Volos Stavros <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Dear Hailong, >> >> The reason you get I/O activity is due to the fact that the segments >> don't fit into the memory. >> >> I would recommend reducing the size of your index so that >> indexes+segments occupy roughly 16GB. >> >> This is relatively easy to do in case you used multiple reducer tasks >> (during the crawling phase) to create >> multiple partitions. >> >> (see Notes at http://parsa.epfl.ch/cloudsuite/search.html: The >> mapred.reduce.tasks property >> determines how many index and segment partitions will be created.) >> >> Regards, >> -Stavros. >> ________________________________________ >> From: Hailong Yang [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] >> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:03 PM >> To: Volos Stavros >> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Lingjia >> Tang; Jason Mars >> Subject: Re: How to fit the index into the memory for the web search >> benchmark >> >> Dear Stavros, >> >> Thank you for your reply. I understand the data structures required >> during the search. The 6GB is only the size of the actual index ( the >> directory of indexes). The whole data including the segments accounts for >> 30GB. >> >> Best >> >> Hailong >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Volos Stavros <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>>> wrote: >> Dear Hailong, >> >> There are two components that are used when performing a query against >> the index serving node: >> (a) the actual index (under indexes) >> (b) segments (under segments) >> >> What exactly is 6GB? Are you including the segments as well? >> >> Regards, >> -Stavros. >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Hailong Yang [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >> ><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:51 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Lingjia Tang; Jason Mars >> Subject: How to fit the index into the memory for the web search benchmark >> >> Hi CloudSuite, >> >> I am experimenting with the web search benchmark. However, I am wondering >> how to fit the index into the memory in order to avoid unnecessary disk >> access. I have a 6GB index crawled from wikipedia and the RAM is 16GB. >> During the workload execution, I noticed there were periodical 2% I/O >> utilization increase and the memory used by nutch server was always less >> than 500MB. So I guess the whole index is not brought into the memory by >> default before serving the search queries, right? Could you tell me how to >> do that exactly as you did in the clearing cloud paper. Thanks! >> >> >> Best >> >> Hailong >> >> >> >
