RE: Making lucene work in weblogic cluster

2004-10-08 Thread David Townsend
Doug discusses the locking issue, with a potential solution

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1619988



-Original Message-
From: Praveen Peddi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 October 2004 16:10
To: lucenelist
Subject: Making lucene work in weblogic cluster


While I was going through the mailing list in solving the lucene cluster problem, I 
came accross this thread. Does any one know if David Townsend had submitted the patch 
he was talking about?
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06252.html

I am interested in looking at the NFS solution (mounting the shared drive on each 
server in cluster). I don't know if anyone has used this solution in cluster but this 
seems to be a better approach than RemoteSearchable interface and DB based index 
(SQLDirectory).


I am currently looking at 2 options:
Index on Shared drive: Use single index dir on a shared drive (NFS, etc.), which is 
mounted on each app server. All the servers in the cluster write to this shared drive 
when objects are modified.
Problems:
1) Known problems like file locking etc. (The above thread talks about moving locking 
mechanism to DB but I have no idea how).
2) Performance.

Index Per Server: Create copies of the index dir for each machine. Requires regular 
updates, etc. Each server maintains its own index and searches on its own index.
Problems:
1) Modifying the index is complex. When Objects are modified on a server1 that does 
not run the search system, server1 needs to notify all servers in the cluster about 
these modifications so that each server can update its own index. This may involve 
some kind of remote communication mechanism which will perform bad since our index 
modifies a lot.

So I am still reviewing both options and trying to figure out which one is the best 
and how to solve the above problems.

If you guys have any ideas, Pls shoot them. I would appreciate any help regarding 
making lucene clusterable (both indexing and searching).

Praveen

** 
Praveen Peddi
Sr Software Engg, Context Media, Inc. 
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel:  401.854.3475 
Fax:  401.861.3596 
web: http://www.contextmedia.com 
** 
Context Media- "The Leader in Enterprise Content Integration" 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



RE: Making lucene work in weblogic cluster

2004-10-08 Thread David Townsend
No I didn't.  If you look for NFS in the archives, there is an alternate solution out 
there.  I suppose I should get around to submitting the patch.

-Original Message-
From: Praveen Peddi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 October 2004 16:10
To: lucenelist
Subject: Making lucene work in weblogic cluster


While I was going through the mailing list in solving the lucene cluster problem, I 
came accross this thread. Does any one know if David Townsend had submitted the patch 
he was talking about?
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06252.html

I am interested in looking at the NFS solution (mounting the shared drive on each 
server in cluster). I don't know if anyone has used this solution in cluster but this 
seems to be a better approach than RemoteSearchable interface and DB based index 
(SQLDirectory).


I am currently looking at 2 options:
Index on Shared drive: Use single index dir on a shared drive (NFS, etc.), which is 
mounted on each app server. All the servers in the cluster write to this shared drive 
when objects are modified.
Problems:
1) Known problems like file locking etc. (The above thread talks about moving locking 
mechanism to DB but I have no idea how).
2) Performance.

Index Per Server: Create copies of the index dir for each machine. Requires regular 
updates, etc. Each server maintains its own index and searches on its own index.
Problems:
1) Modifying the index is complex. When Objects are modified on a server1 that does 
not run the search system, server1 needs to notify all servers in the cluster about 
these modifications so that each server can update its own index. This may involve 
some kind of remote communication mechanism which will perform bad since our index 
modifies a lot.

So I am still reviewing both options and trying to figure out which one is the best 
and how to solve the above problems.

If you guys have any ideas, Pls shoot them. I would appreciate any help regarding 
making lucene clusterable (both indexing and searching).

Praveen

** 
Praveen Peddi
Sr Software Engg, Context Media, Inc. 
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel:  401.854.3475 
Fax:  401.861.3596 
web: http://www.contextmedia.com 
** 
Context Media- "The Leader in Enterprise Content Integration" 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Making lucene work in weblogic cluster

2004-10-08 Thread Praveen Peddi
While I was going through the mailing list in solving the lucene cluster problem, I 
came accross this thread. Does any one know if David Townsend had submitted the patch 
he was talking about?
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06252.html

I am interested in looking at the NFS solution (mounting the shared drive on each 
server in cluster). I don't know if anyone has used this solution in cluster but this 
seems to be a better approach than RemoteSearchable interface and DB based index 
(SQLDirectory).


I am currently looking at 2 options:
Index on Shared drive: Use single index dir on a shared drive (NFS, etc.), which is 
mounted on each app server. All the servers in the cluster write to this shared drive 
when objects are modified.
Problems:
1) Known problems like file locking etc. (The above thread talks about moving locking 
mechanism to DB but I have no idea how).
2) Performance.

Index Per Server: Create copies of the index dir for each machine. Requires regular 
updates, etc. Each server maintains its own index and searches on its own index.
Problems:
1) Modifying the index is complex. When Objects are modified on a server1 that does 
not run the search system, server1 needs to notify all servers in the cluster about 
these modifications so that each server can update its own index. This may involve 
some kind of remote communication mechanism which will perform bad since our index 
modifies a lot.

So I am still reviewing both options and trying to figure out which one is the best 
and how to solve the above problems.

If you guys have any ideas, Pls shoot them. I would appreciate any help regarding 
making lucene clusterable (both indexing and searching).

Praveen

** 
Praveen Peddi
Sr Software Engg, Context Media, Inc. 
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel:  401.854.3475 
Fax:  401.861.3596 
web: http://www.contextmedia.com 
** 
Context Media- "The Leader in Enterprise Content Integration"