SolrCoud cluster heavily depends on data locality and high I/O, thus any
NFS with access to disk array over the network is multitude times slower
than direct I/O and must be avoided. Classical JBOD (just a bunch of disks)
config + memory mapped files ensure high performance.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:57 +0100, Gili Nachum wrote:
My data center is out of SAN or local disk storage - is it a big no-no to
store Solr core data folder over NAS?
It depends on your NAS speed. Both Walter and David are right: It can
perform really bad or quite satisfactory. We briefly
My experience was with Solr 1.2 and regular old NFS, so that was probably worst
case. I was very surprised that it was that bad, though.
So benchmark it before you assume it is fast enough.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/
On Nov 5, 2014, at 12:27
In our experience yes, it's a bad idea.
Charlie
On 5 November 2014 10:27, Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org wrote:
My experience was with Solr 1.2 and regular old NFS, so that was probably
worst case. I was very surprised that it was that bad, though.
So benchmark it before you assume
So NFS it's doable, and performance will vary by the grade of storage I'm
getting and the volume of other activity on the NAS. Good to know it's not
attributed to index corruptions in Lucene (failures to sync to disk and
such).
Update: Turns out that someone did find 50TB over SAN laying around
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 23:04 +0100, Gili Nachum wrote:
Update: Turns out that someone did find 50TB over SAN laying around the
data center for me to use, so I won't find out for my self how's life with
NFS/NAS in the near future.
There seems to be issues especially with NFS that you need to
My data center is out of SAN or local disk storage - is it a big no-no to
store Solr core data folder over NAS?
That means 1. Lucene index 2. Transaction log.
The NAS mount would be accessed by a single machine. I do care about
performance.
If I do go with NAS. Should I expect index corruption
I did that once by accident. It was 100X slower.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/
On Nov 4, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Gili Nachum gilinac...@gmail.com wrote:
My data center is out of SAN or local disk storage - is it a big no-no to
store Solr core data
: A bad idea to store core data directory over NAS?
My data center is out of SAN or local disk storage - is it a big no-no to
store Solr core data folder over NAS?
That means 1. Lucene index 2. Transaction log.
The NAS mount would be accessed by a single machine. I do care about
performance.
If I
Interestingly enough, one of our installations has a 16-node cluster
using 4 NAS devices (xen as virtualization backbone). The data drive for
the individual node that holds the index is a stripe of 2x 500GB disks.
Each disk of the stripe is on a different NAS device (scattered
pattern). With
10 matches
Mail list logo
