Hi Benjamin, I don't know what exactly your application is doing, but option 2) sounds the most manageable to me.
Otis --- Benjamin Reitzammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > we are in the process of planning a search feature of a product and > we > are having quite a hard time figuring out the "right" way to do it. > > The requirements for our app are the following: > 1) Large number of indices (at _least_ 10000) > 2) The amount of data involved per index is not very high, but > because > of the number of indices involved the data set will be something > about > 500 - 1000 GB > 3) The searching capabilities must be fail safe, while it's > acceptable > if deletes/updates can take some time. > 4) The majority of operations will be searching the indices. > > I've followed the mailing list intensively the last month and > especially the "Best Practices for Distributing Lucene Indexing and > Searching" > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lucene-user&m=110971318020691&w=2) > and "Real time indexing and distribution to lucene on separate boxes > (long)" > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lucene-user&m=107900097217474&w=2) > threads provided some interesting insight. > > But still our requirements are a bit different. > > My thoughts how the above could be handled, so far are: > > 1) Have one *really big* "master" which handles all tasks related to > index manipulation. Sync the indices according to Doug's tips > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lucene-user&m=110973989200204&w=2 out > to a cluster of slaves that are responsible for searching. > Problem: How to make sure that indices across slaves are in sync. > Big Problem: Syncing of this large number of indices will cause a lot > of traffic and cause already quite a load on the slaves (not to speak > of the master) > > 1.1) Is it safe to _search_ (only) an index mounted via NFS? If yes, > then the search boxes could mount the indices on the master box. But > this solution would probably lead to some serious perfomance issues > because of the needed disk I/O on the master. > Though I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. > > 2) Split up index collection into smaller portions and distribute a > certain number of indices (~ up to 1000 indices) into smaller > autonomous clusters, that are completely responsible for their > collection of indices. > Problem: How do I keep index distribution dynamic so I don't have to > hardcode where to look for a certain index (that's not a real lucene > issue, but more one of distributed computing, but nevertheless I > thought you guys might know a way to solve it). > > Any ideas on this? > Has anyone ever worked with such a large number of Lucene indices > (and > the amount of data it involves)? > > I appreciate your help very much. > > Cheers > > Benjamin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
