That does sound fairly brilliant. One thing you'll have to keep in mind is that different plugins index different things and sometimes the same things in different ways. You'll need to make sure that crawl data is labeled with both the plugins used and the versions of each of the plugins.
Just my 2cents, Jake. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Sutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:14 PM To: nutch-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: IncrediBILL's Random Rants: How Much Nutch is TOO MUCH Nutch? Michael, Superb idea! And if those crawls could be distributed through a protocol like bittorrent, it would spread out the load versus having a single bottleneck somewhere. I haven't thought it through, but here's some information (the pdf is the best place to start). http://www.bittorrent.com/bittorrentecon.pdf http://www.bittorrent.org/protocol.html As you mention, trust is an issue. You'd want to prevent people who were not running nutch from using the service to exchange non-crawl data. You'd also want to have some kind of trust list that could be maintained by the nutch community, and by individual nutches, as to whose crawls you'd trust. Would you divide up the work by site? Or by a URL hash? Would you exchange URL lists as well as crawls? Anyway, I bet an elegant solution can be crafted. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Wechner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:52 AM To: nutch-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: IncrediBILL's Random Rants: How Much Nutch is TOO MUCH Nutch? Paul Sutter wrote: > I think that Nutch has to solve the problem: if you leave the problem to the > websites, they're more likely to cut you off than they are to implement > their own index storage scheme. Besides, they'd get it wrong, have stale > data, etc. > agreed > Maybe what is needed is brainstorming on a shared crawling scheme > implemented in Nutch. Maybe something based on a bittorrent-like protocol? > I am not sure if I understand, can you explain a bit? What comes to my mind is a server (service) acting as an index pointer/referer. Let's say I have indexed the NYT today then I would notify this server about it and also where the index can be retrieved from. So somebody else could first contact this server and check if somebody has recently indexed NYT. Of course one would have the problem if the index can be trusted Michi > incrediBILL seems to have a pretty good point. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Wechner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:30 AM > To: nutch-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: IncrediBILL's Random Rants: How Much Nutch is TOO MUCH Nutch? > > Doug Cutting wrote: > > http://incredibill.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-much-nutch-is-too-much-nutch .htm > l > >> > well, I think incrediBILL has an argument, that people might really > start excluding bots from their servers if it's > becoming too much. What might help is that incrediBILL would offer an > index of the site, which should be smaller > than the site itself. I am not sure if there exists a "standard" for > something like this. Basically the bot would ask the > server if an index exists and where it is located and what the date it > is from and then the bot decides to download the index > or otherwise starts crawling the site. > > Michi > > -- Michael Wechner Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 44 272 91 61
