2006/10/14, Tomi NA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2006/10/14, Toufeeq Hussain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From internal tests with ntlmaps + Nutch the conclusion we came to was
> that though it "kinda-works" it puts a huge load on the Nutch server
> as ntlmaps is a major memory-hog and the mixture of the two leads to
> performance issues. For a PoC this will do but for
> production-deployments I would not suggest one goes the ntlmaps way.
>
> An alternate would be to have a separate ntlmaps-server ,a dedicated
> machine acting as the NTLM proxy for the Nutch-box which sits behind
> it.
I haven't noticed the added resource drain, but then again, I haven't
really tested all that much: the constraints on the partical project I
implemented the approach weren't very strict.
I'll keep my eye on the cpu usage.
* Update *
ntlmaps is really every bit as sluggish as Toufeeq led me to believe,
routinely taking up to 85% of the CPU. I doesn't appear deterministic,
though: right now it's barely noticable using less then 10% of the CPU
power.
Toufeeq, could you say anything more on the topic of nutch in-built
NTLM authentication support?
t.n.a.
