I wouldn't have thought that CPU was a big deal with the speed/cores of CPU's continuously growing according to Moore's law and the change in Disk Speed barely changine 50% in 15 years. Must have a lot to do with caching.
What size indexes are you working with? Are you saying you can get the whole thing in memory? That would negate almost any disk benefits. I'm guessing that keeping shards small enough to fit into memory must be one of the big tricks. Dennis Gearon Signature Warning ---------------- EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. Read 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded' Laugh at http://www.yert.com/film.php --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> wrote: > From: Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> > Subject: Re: Hardware Specs Question > To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 3:43 AM > On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 11:07 +0200, > Dennis Gearon wrote: > > If you really want to see performance, try external > DRAM disks. > > Whew! 800X faster than a disk. > > As sexy as they are, the DRAM drives does not buy much more > extra > performance. At least not at the search stage. For > searching, SSDs are > not that far from holding the index fully in RAM (about 3/4 > the speed in > our tests but YMMV). The CPU is the bottleneck. > > That was with Lucene 2.4 so the relative numbers might have > changed, but > the old lesson still stands: A well balanced system is > key. > >
