That's valuable info there. :) So then I wonder which of the two, RAM or SSD, has a more favorable price/size trajectory...
Otis ---- Performance Monitoring SaaS for Solr - http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 2:41 AM > Subject: Re: How to accelerate your Solr-Lucene appication by 4x > > 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 trade-off, although they are out-of-date enough to talk about 8GB memory as 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. >> > >> > >> > >> >
