The question almost doesn't make sense, because SANs are so configurable. It is like saying "over a network" without specifying whether the network is dial-up or fiber.
A few things to note: * The automatic backups are not synchronized with consistent index states, so they are probably useless. * RAID configs that reduce read performance are a bad idea. * If it is shared, watch out for search accesses interfering with other users. Also, NAS is almost always a bad idea for search indexes, introducing big performance and reliability problems. wunder On 10/18/07 3:36 PM, "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think anyone replied to this, but maybe now, two months since Lance's > email, somebody has done some comparisons? > I'm curious, too. > > Otis > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Lance Norskog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 6:28:27 PM > Subject: Overall performance: network v.s. SAN file system > > > Is anyone doing Solr installations with a SAN file system? Like IBM > Storage > Tank or Apple XSAN or Red Hat GFS? What are your experiences? > > Thanks, > > Lance
