we use the fsdirectory, ramdirectory could be better on some edge cases,
especially when you have a small index or do a lot of inserts and updates to
the index. If you have enough memory on the machine, Lucene does a good job
caching the termvectors and some relevant info, after some time the disk
usage should be very low. The ramdirectory has a big penalty on load time
has it have to load all the info in the memory, even that info that will
never be used, that is a big cost with such a big index, also it doesn't
ensure that it wouldn't be swapped to disk if the OS needs memory.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Glyn Darkin <g...@darkinsystems.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick response Jokin,
>
> We are currently building a search solution that has a 3.6 g index
> Max concurrent reads at the moment is 54, but we are hoping that this
> will increase significantly as the website traffic increases
> This will be a read only index, with a deployment of a new index nightly.
>
> On another note,
> We are considering running searches against the index using a
> FSDirectory. Is this how you have your search or do you load the index
> into a RAMDirectory?
>
> Cheers
>
> Glyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/2/26 Jokin Cuadrado <joki...@gmail.com>:
> > i have a 3 Gb index  and another one of 800 Mb, the update rate is small
> and
> > the number or concurrent search right now it's also small, but i made the
> > synchronization during a stress test without any problem, you just have
> to
> > copy the cfs file before the segments one, and as the most copy software
> > list the directories in alphabetically order, it always happen. (cfs
> files
> > start with an "_" character, so they are always the first to be copied).
> > in my case this works well because i don't have big restrictions, for
> > example the result of the search could be diferent between 2 machines
> during
> > an small amount of time, and the incremental updates are done every
> couple
> > hours.
> >
> > If you tell us your constraints, I could suggest you more complex
> approaches
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Glyn Darkin <g...@darkinsystems.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Jokin,
> >>
> >> What sort of index size are you dealing with and how many concurrent
> >> searches would be running against your index when you Robocopy?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Glyn
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/2/26 Jokin Cuadrado <joki...@gmail.com>:
> >> > Robocopy  /Mir works smoothly, just make sure that you copy first the
> >> index
> >> > files (.cfs) and after the segments.* ones.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Nitin Shiralkar <
> nit...@coreobjects.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi All,
> >> >>
> >> >> Do we have any in-built replication support? Today, we are building
> the
> >> >> index and generating a periodic backup through the same builder
> service.
> >> >> This is working fine for couple of years. But I would like to know if
> >> there
> >> >> are any better options within Lucene library. Though we are using
> >> >> Lucene.NET, but would also like to know if there is any support on
> Java
> >> side
> >> >> if not on .NET.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks & regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Nitin Shiralkar
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Jokin
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Glyn Darkin
>
> Darkin Systems Ltd
> Mob: 07961815649
> Fax: 08717145065
> Web: www.darkinsystems.com
>
> Company No: 6173001
> VAT No: 906350835
>



-- 
Jokin

Reply via email to