With an index that small, I wonder why you bother with so many copies? What kind of load are you hitting it with and how complex are the queries?
Because unless you have *very* high query rate, I'd look at why my queries were taking so long before complexifying things this way. Best Erick On Feb 7, 2008 4:52 PM, Ruslan Sivak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My index is only 4mb. Is there a SQL backend for Lucene? > > Russ > > Michael McCandless wrote: > > > > If you're able to tell Windows FRS which specific files to copy, then > > SnapshotDeletionPolicy (in 2.3) should work for this. > > > > It basically protects a consistent snapshot of your index, ensuring > > those files will not be deleted, while not blocking further updates to > > the index. > > > > Mike > > > > Ruslan Sivak wrote: > > > >> I'm wondering if this is a problem that lucene users have already > >> tackled. I have four copies of the application using a lucene > >> index. They are located on two physical servers with two copies on > >> each server accessing two copies of the lucene index. I use Windows > >> FRS (File Replication Service) to replicate the index between the two > >> servers. > >> Things work well most of the time, but sometimes, I believe under > >> load, the index doesn't get a chance to propagate before another > >> write takes place and it gets corrupted. > >> What would you recommend I use to keep the index in sync between the > >> four copies of the app? > >> > >> Russ > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
