On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <
otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You should probably just look at the index version number to figure out if
> the name changed. If you are looking at segments.gen, you are looking at a
> file that may not exist in Lucene in the fut
cene.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:57:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Solr Performance bottleneck
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Jon Bodner wrote:
>
> >
> > Trying to point multiple Solrs on multiple boxes at a single shared
> > directory is almost cer
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Jon Bodner wrote:
>
> Trying to point multiple Solrs on multiple boxes at a single shared
> directory is almost certainly doomed to failure; the read-only Solrs won't
> know when the read/write Solr instance has updated the index.
>
I'm solving the same problem
This isn't a new problem, NFS was 100X slower than local disk for me
with Solr 1.1.
Backing up indexes is very tricky. You need to do it while the are
not being updated, or you'll get a corrupt copy. If your indexes
aren't large, you are probably better off backing up the source
documents and buil
As a follow-up note, we solved our problem by moving the indexes to local
store and upgrading to Solr 1.4. I did a thread dump against our 1.3 Solr
instance and it was spending lots of time blocking on index section loading.
The NIO implementation in 1.4 solved that problem and copying to local
Grant Ingersoll-6 wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Can you share the stack traces for the exceptions? Also, I don't know
> what it is about it, but an index with non-stored items of only 925K
> items being about 2.3GB seems weird to me for some reason. How many
> unique terms do you have?
>
Ind
Hi Jon,
Can you share the stack traces for the exceptions? Also, I don't know
what it is about it, but an index with non-stored items of only 925K
items being about 2.3GB seems weird to me for some reason. How many
unique terms do you have?
Also, in Lucene there is a standalone program
