Look here for a number of messages on this: http://markmail.org/search/solr+nfs
You'll find my posting, where indexing on NFS was 100X slower than local disk. And 276 other e-mails on the subject. wunder On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Kallin, > > I don't have experience with SAS storage and don't recall SAS being mentioned > on Lucene/Solr lists. But I do recall NFS being mention on several occasions: > > http://search-lucene.com/?q=sas+nfs > http://search-lucene.com/?q=sas+nfs+san > > From a few of my quick Google-based quick self-education queries, I'd say SAS > is clearly superior to storage of Lucene/Solr indices on NFS, which has/had > issues, as you can see from the above threads. > > Otis > ---- > Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch > Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: "Nagelberg, Kallin" <knagelb...@globeandmail.com> >> To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> >> Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 4:13:27 PM >> Subject: nfs vs sas in production >> >> Hey, > > A question was raised during a meeting about our new Solr based >> search projects. We're getting 4 cutting edge servers each with something >> like >> 24 Gigs of ram dedicated to search. However there is some problem with the >> amount of SAS based storage each machine can handle, and people wonder if we >> might have to use a NFS based drive instead. Does anyone have any experience >> using SAS vs. NFS drives for Solr? Any feedback would be >> appreciated! > > Thanks, > -Kallin Nagelberg
