I suggest that you do not try to save money on disk space. Disk is cheap.
You will spend weeks of expensive engineering time trying to make this work.
Once you make it work, it will be slow an unreliable.
300GB Amazon EBS volumes are $180/year, $360/year for SSD. Just spend the money.
wunder
Wa
First examine whether you can reduce the amount of data you keep
around, field norms, stored fields, etc. Here's a place to start:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10080881/solr-index-size-reduction
I have heard of people doing what you suggest, but be _very_ careful
that you don't accidentally
Hello,
Thanks for the suggestions. My aim is to reduce the disk space usage.
I have 1 master with 2 slave configured, where slaves are used for
searching and master ingests new data replicated to slaves, but as my index
size is in 100's of GB we see 3x times space overhead. i would like to
red
To pile on: If you're talking about pointing two Solr instances at the
_same_ index, it doesn't matter whether you are on NFS or not, you'll
have all sorts of problems. And if this is a SolrCloud installation,
it's particularly hard to get right.
Please do not do this unless you have a very good r
Several years ago, I accidentally put Solr indexes on an NFS volume and it was
100X slower.
If you have enough RAM, query speed should be OK, but startup time (loading
indexes into file buffers) could be really long. Indexing could be quite slow.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
ht
On 3/27/2015 12:06 AM, abhi Abhishek wrote:
> Greetings,
> I am trying to use a network shared location as my index directory.
> are there any known problems in using a Network File System for running a
> SOLR Instance?
It is not recommended. You will probably need to change the lockType,
.
Greetings,
I am trying to use a network shared location as my index directory.
are there any known problems in using a Network File System for running a
SOLR Instance?
Thanks in Advance.
Best Regards,
Abhishek
