I think what has changed is that a lot more people hit this problem, and a number of people provided answers, so it's much easier now for a new person to learn what to do when this limit is hit.
At the same time, seeing how some people benchmark systems without tuning them and then publish their results, cfs may be safer. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Solr - Lucene - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 1:32:51 PM > Subject: Re: Compound File Default > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:05:13AM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > At any rate, I feel pretty safe assuming no one is running a production > > system on a MBP... > > I don't really care whether Lucene defaults to the compound file format or not > (KS does, Lucy will, and that's good enough for me), but it seems weird that > you're assuming that only Mac Book Pros have that default. Just for giggles, > I checked my old PowerPC Mac Mini, running 10.5 -- it's got a limit of 256. > > But beyond that, Lucene adopted the compound file format default for a reason, > right? What's changed about the environment that justifies overturning that > decision? > > When I checked a RedHat 9 box several years ago, it was at 1024; when I > checked a CentOS 5.2 box today, it was at 1024. A FreeBSD 5.3 box several > years ago was at 65536. File descriptor limits don't seem to advance like > hardware stats. > > Go ahead and change the default, but I've got a feeling you're about to > relearn old lessons. > > Marvin Humphrey > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
