hongsgo at gmail
Mar 19, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #3 of 7
(1329 views)
Permalink
|
how about Lucene ApI Changes Point.. Between WAS Local Disk And NAS Disk
it's same?
it doesn't matter Storage Platfform?
I will use Java Sdk 1.5 Platfform.
2009/3/20 Ted Dunning <ted.dunning [at] gmail>:
> There are no issues running lucene on any drive that provides fast and
> reliable random access reads.
>
> Some SAN drives will work better than cheap local disks and those work
> pretty well.
>
> It is even possible to run Lucene with an index in a decidedly unfriendly
> file system (from the standpoint of random access reads) like HDFS.
>
> How well it works depends a lot on your particular work load. The long tail
> applies here; most retrieval applications are pretty small and only a few
> are really, really huge. For small applications up to a million or a few
> million documents and queries arriving every few seconds, and low update
> rates, you should be fine almost no matter what you are using. For hundreds
> of queries per second against hundreds of millions of documents with lots of
> updates, you have a completely different kettle of fish that will require
> completely different techniques. For really large systems, you have to
> implement scalable clustered systems and the necessary considerations are
> much broader than just disk I/O rates.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:58 PM, ȫ <hongsgo [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there are any known issues having a lucene index on a NAS
>> or SAN drive? Some
>> basic tests show that it works fine. But are there performance issues
>> with indexing on NAS
>> for instance?
>>
>>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>
|
