Actually, for search applications there is a reasonable amount of evidence that holding the index in RAM is actually more cost effective than SSD's because the throughput is enough faster to make up for the price differential. There are several papers out of UMass that describe this trade-off, although they are out-of-date enough to talk about 8GB memory as being big. One interest aspect of the work is the way that they keep an index highly compressed yet still fast to search.
As a point of reference, most of Google's searches are served out of memory in pretty much just this way. Using SSD's would just slow them down. On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Fuad Efendi <f...@efendi.ca> wrote: > I agree that SSD boosts performance... In some rare not-real-life scenario: > - super frequent commits > That's it, nothing more except the fact that Lucene compile time including > tests takes up to two minutes on MacBook with SSD, or forty-fifty minutes > on Windows with HDD. > Of course, with non-empty maven repository in both scenario, to be fair. > > > another scenario: imagine google file system is powered by SSD instead of > cheapest HDD... HAHAHA!!! > > Can we expect response time 0.1 milliseconds instead of 30-50? > > > And final question... Will SSD improve performance of fuzzy search? Range > queries? Etc > > > > I just want to say that SSD is faster than HDD but it doesn't mean > anything... > > > > -Fuad > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On 2012-01-19, at 9:40 AM, "Peter Velikin" <pe...@velobit.com> wrote: > > > All, > > > > Point taken: my message should have been written more succinctly and > just stuck to the facts. Sorry for the sales pitch! > > > > However, I believe that adding SSD as a means to accelerate the > performance of your Solr cluster is an important topic to discuss on this > forum. There are many options for you to consider. I believe VeloBit would > be the best option for many, but you have choices, some of them completely > free. If interested, send me a note and I'll be happy to tell you about the > different options (free or paid) you can consider. > > > > Solr clusters are I/O bound. I am arguing that before you buy additional > servers, replace your existing servers with new ones, or swap your hard > disks, you should try adding SSD as a cache. If the promise is that adding > 1 SSD could save you the cost of 3 additional servers, you should try it. > > > > Has anyone else tried adding SSDs as a cache to boost the performance of > Solr clusters? Can you share your results? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Peter Velikin > > VP Online Marketing, VeloBit, Inc. > > pe...@velobit.com > > tel. 978-263-4800 > > mob. 617-306-7165 > > > > VeloBit provides plug & play SSD caching software that dramatically > accelerates applications at a remarkably low cost. The software installs > seamlessly in less than 10 minutes and automatically tunes for fastest > application speed. Visit www.velobit.com for details. > > > > > > >
