[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik
> Seeley
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Practical number of Solr instances per machine
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Feak, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
&g
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik
Seeley
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:38 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical number of Solr instances per machine
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Feak, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Feak, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In our load testing, the limit for utilizing all of the processor time
> on a box was locking (synchronize, mutex, monitor, pick one). There were
> a couple of locking points that we saw.
>
> 1. Lucene's locking on the index f
Original Message-
From: Phillip Farber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:44 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical number of Solr instances per machine
Otis, you have a good memory :-) I guess the main thing that prompted
my question me was Mike K
Otis, you have a good memory :-) I guess the main thing that prompted
my question me was Mike Klass' statement that he runs 2 instance per
machine to "squeeze" performance out of the box. That raised the
question in my mind as to just how this could benefit performance over a
single instance
Hi,
Did you not ask this question a while back? I may be mixing things... (hah,
no, just checked)
In short, it depends on a number of factors, such as index sizes, query rates,
complexity of queries, amount of RAM, your target query latency, etc. etc. So
there is no super clear cut answer. I
