Thanks for chipping in, Toke. A ~1TB index is impressive. Back of the envelope says reading & writing 900GB in 8 hours is 2*900GB/(8*60*60s) = 64MB/s. I don't remember the interface for our SSD machine, but even with SATA II this is only ~1/5th of the possible fairly sequential IO throughput. So for us at least, NVMe drives are not needed to have single-threaded CPU as bottleneck.
The mileage will vary depending on the CPU -- if it can merge the data from multiple files at ones fast enough then it may theoretically saturate the bandwidth... but I agree we also seem to be CPU bound on these N-to-1 merges, a regular SSD is enough. > And +1 to the issue BTW. I agree. Fine-grained granularity here would be a win even in the regular "merge is a low-priority citizen" case. At least that's what I tend to think. And if there are spare CPUs, the gain would be terrific. Dawid --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
