Hi, Thanks for the speedy answer, this is good to know. However, i was wondering about the FS block size.... consider a Linux box:
$ dumpe2fs /dev/sda1 | grep "Block size" dumpe2fs 1.36 (05-Feb-2005) Block size: 1024 That shows /dev/sda1 has blocks 1k in size. I don't think these can be changed "on-the-fly", and can be changed only by re-creating the FS (e.g. mkfs.ext3 .... under Linux). Thus, I can't test different block sizes easily, and am wondering if anyone has already done this, or simply knows what block size, theoretically at least, should perform better. Thanks, Otis ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael D. Curtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Fri 10 Feb 2006 05:05:07 PM EST Subject: Re: Performance and FS block size Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hi, > > I'm wondering if anyone has tested Lucene indexing/search performance with > different file system block sizes? > > I just realized one of the servers where I run a lot of Lucene indexing and > searching has an FS with blocks of only 1K in size (typically they are 4k or > 8k, I believe), so I started wondering what's better for Lucene - smaller or > larger blocks? I have a feeling 1K is too small, although I don't know > enough to back up this feeling. :( On my system (dual Xeon with a couple 120GB S-ATA drives (not RAIDed), running Fedora Core 3) I changed BUFFER_SIZE in storage/OutputStream.java to 4096, achieving about 30% better performance in indexing. The search improvement was smaller, enough smaller that it was on order what I thought my measurement error was. I tried values up to 64K, but there wasn't much change on my system after 4K. --MDC --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
