Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Dennis Kubes wrote:
I have been working on improving the Generator for the last couple of days and here are the discussion areas I have come up with so far:

1) Would resolving IP addresses inside of the generator be useful? If we are limiting the number of urls to fetch then this would allow us to remove UnknownHosts before hand, essentially giving us a better fetch list. Cons are it could as much as double the DNS load as it is happening once during generate and once during fetching. As it is I am working on a patch that give the option to either resolve it or not.

We had a discussion on this in the past. IIRC here are the issues with early IP resolution:

* hostname->ip mapping may change rapidly (round-robin DNS),

True but in this instance the goal was just to avoid pulling urls with unknown DNS into the fetchlist so we can get the maximum amount of good urls to fetch. We are trading time for quality.


* resolving IPs in Generator practicaly enforces that even small installations must use local caching DNS servers - otherwise the cumulative DNS traffic created by Generator may be too high.

If this is an option that is set to false by default then it should affect current behavior and it should give those of us with proper resources the ability to filter out if desired. I guess on one hand I am thinking that having the option is better than not having it, maybe not. Do you think it would be bad to have the option?


* fetcher would need a way to re-use this resolved IP so that we don't do the same lookup twice, i.e. we would have to implement a DNS provider that can use the resolved (and presumably saved) IPs during fetching.

We could start with an option to have it there (not saved), then move it along to a more developed solution later :)

All in all, it may be worth it, or perhaps it might not. ;)


2) Normalization of urls inside of generate. Currently in the reduce method of Selector inside of generate there is a normalization call. Personally I think this is in the wrong place. I think this should be in selector map method. As it is currently, the normalizer doesn't have any effect anyways because we are not collecting a changed url (a bug).

If we were to put the normalizer in the map method, then the possibility for duplicate urls from normalization arises as well. If I am not mistaken this would need another MR job at the end of generator to remove duplicates.

Another options would be just to NOT have the normalization option inside of Generator. Is there a good reason to have normalization in Generator?


Well, I think the idea here was that the normalization rules could be very dynamic, i.e. they could change dramatically between subsequent runs of Generator - although I must say that I don't see this happening in practice ...

Currently there is a normalization in the selector reduce. But that normalized url never updates the entry.url, which is a bug, so is it better to just remove the normalization or leave it. Here is the kicker though, if we leave it, it is possible that duplicate urls will make it through to the fetchlist.

Perhaps Nutch should work on the following assumption: urls that are found in Crawldb are guaranteed to be normalized. If different normalization rules are needed then the crawldb needs to be explicitly filtered in a separate step, using CrawlDbMerger tool.

We have been talking about this lately. It seems like there needs to be two more tools or extension points.

One is a url translator. Something that would say url A is actually url B. Anytime that url is seen it would be translated to its new form. This would help with cases such as java.net vs www.java.net being two separate urls. Jobs could be written to translate based on hash or other values.

The second tool would be a tool that more completely manipulates the crawldb (maybe this is the crawldbmerger). This would allow things like resetting the crawl dates on all urls for the crawldb, normalizing scores, things like that that are global operations on the entire crawldb or a subset of the urls in the crawldb.

Dennis


Reply via email to