SAN is not NFS. I would expect SAN to be fast. wunder
On 2/26/08 10:47 AM, "Jae Joo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my environment, there is NO big difference between local disk and SAN based > file system. > A little slow down, but not a problem (1 or 2 %) > I do have 4 sets of solr indices each has more than 10G in 3 servers. > I think that it is not good way to share SINGLE Index. - disk is pretty cheap > and we can add more disk in SAN pretty easily. > I have another server which is called "Master" with local disk based Solr > Index to update the index. > By some accident or time out, the update is not done successfully, so I do > need to do something by manually. > If you have only one index, there is a risk to mess up the index. > > Thanks, > > Jae > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Walter Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 1:27 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Shared index base > > I saw a 100X slowdown running with indexes on NFS. > > I don't understand going through a lot of effort with unsupported > configurations just to share an index. Local disk is cheap, the > snapshot stuff works well, and local discs avoid a single point > of failure. > > The testing time to make a shared index work with each new > release of Solr is almost certainly more expensive than buying > local disc. > > The single point of failure is real issue. I've seen two discs > fail on one RAID. When that happens, you've lost all of your > search for hours or days. > > Finally, how do you tell Solr that the index has changed and > it needs a new Searcher? Normally, that is a commit, but you > don't want to commit from a read-only Solr. > > wunder > > On 2/26/08 10:17 AM, "Matthew Runo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I hope so. I've found that every once in a while Solr 1.2 replication >> will die, from a temp-index.... file that seems to ham it up. Removing >> that file on all the servers fixes the issue though. >> >> We'd like to be able to point all the servers at an NFS location for >> their index files, and use a single server to update it. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Matthew Runo >> Software Developer >> Zappos.com >> 702.943.7833 >> >> On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Alok Dhir wrote: >> >>> Are you saying all the servers will use the same 'data' dir? Is >>> that a supported config? >>> >>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Matthew Runo wrote: >>> >>>> We're about to do the same thing here, but have not tried yet. We >>>> currently run Solr with replication across several servers. So long >>>> as only one server is doing updates to the index, I think it should >>>> work fine. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Matthew Runo >>>> Software Developer >>>> Zappos.com >>>> 702.943.7833 >>>> >>>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:51 AM, Evgeniy Strokin wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know there was such discussions about the subject, but I want to >>>>> ask again if somebody could share more information. >>>>> We are planning to have several separate servers for our search >>>>> engine. One of them will be index/search server, and all others >>>>> are search only. >>>>> We want to use SAN (BTW: should we consider something else?) and >>>>> give access to it from all servers. So all servers will use the >>>>> same index base, without any replication, same files. >>>>> Is this a good practice? Did somebody do the same? Any problems >>>>> noticed? Or any suggestions, even about different configurations >>>>> are highly appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Gene >>>> >>> >> > > > >
