Hi Walter; You said: "It is not safe to share Solr index files between two Solr servers". Why do you think like that?
2013/4/16 Tim Vaillancourt <t...@elementspace.com> > If centralization of storage is your goal by choosing NFS, iSCSI works > reasonably well with SOLR indexes, although good local-storage will always > be the overall winner. > > I noticed a near 5% degredation in overall search performance (casual > testing, nothing scientific) when moving a 40-50GB indexes to iSCSI (10GBe > network) from a 4x7200rpm RAID 10 local SATA disk setup. > > Tim > > > On 15/04/13 09:59 AM, Walter Underwood wrote: > >> Solr 4.2 does have field compression which makes smaller indexes. That >> will reduce the amount of network traffic. That probably does not help >> much, because I think the latency of NFS is what causes problems. >> >> wunder >> >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Ali, Saqib wrote: >> >> Hello Walter, >>> >>> Thanks for the response. That has been my experience in the past as well. >>> But I was wondering if there new are things in Solr 4 and NFS 4.1 that >>> make >>> the storing of indexes on a NFS mount feasible. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Saqib >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Walter Underwood<wunder@wunderwood.** >>> org <wun...@wunderwood.org>>wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ali, Saqib wrote: >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> Are there any issues with storing Solr Indexes on a NFS share? Also any >>>>> recommendations for using NFS for Solr indexes? >>>>> >>>> I recommend that you do not put Solr indexes on NFS. >>>> >>>> It can be very slow, I measured indexing as 100X slower on NFS a few >>>> years >>>> ago. >>>> >>>> It is not safe to share Solr index files between two Solr servers, so >>>> there is no benefit to NFS. >>>> >>>> wunder >>>> -- >>>> Walter Underwood >>>> wun...@wunderwood.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >> Walter Underwood >> wun...@wunderwood.org >> >> >> >> >>
