My Lucene index is accessed by multiple threads in a single process. /Jong
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Paul Libbrecht <p...@hoplahup.net> wrote: > I doubt NFS is an unreliable file-system. > Lucene uses normal random access to files and this has no reason to be > unreliable unless bad things such as network drops happen (in which case > you'd get direct failures or timeouts rather than corruption). I've seen > fairly large infrastructures being based on NFS and corruption is something > I've never heard about. > > Note: no concurrent access to a lucene index, right? > > Paul > > > Le 2 oct. 2012 à 14:01, Jong Kim a écrit : > > > Thank you all for reply. > > > > So it soudns like it is a known fact that the performance would suffer > > rather significantly when the index files are accessed over NFS. But how > > about reliability and robustness (which seems even more important)? Isn't > > there any increased possibility for intermittent errors such as index > file > > corruption (due to cache inconsistency, difference in delete semantics, > > etc.) when using NFS? Has anyone run into such trouble? Or is it strictly > > just a performance issue? > > > > /Jong > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Paul Libbrecht <p...@hoplahup.net> > wrote: > > > >> My experience in the Lucene 1.x times were a factor of at least four in > >> writing to NFS and about two when reading from there. I'd discourage > this > >> as much as possible! > >> > >> (rsync is way more your friend for transporting and replication à la > solr > >> should also be considered) > >> > >> paul > >> > >> > >> Le 2 oct. 2012 à 11:10, Ian Lea a écrit : > >> > >>> You'll certainly need to factor in the performance of NFS versus local > >> disks. > >>> > >>> My experience is that smallish low activity indexes work just fine on > >>> NFS, but large high activity indexes are not so good, particularly if > >>> you have a lot of modifications to the index. > >>> > >>> You may want to install a custom IndexDeletionPolicy. See the > >>> javadocs for details with specific reference to NFS. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ian. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> How tolerant is your project of decreased search and indexing > >> performance? > >>>> You could probably write a simple test that compares search and write > >>>> speeds of local and NFS-mounted indexes and make the decision based on > >> the > >>>> results. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Jong Kim <jong.luc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> According to the Lucene In Action (Second Edition), the section > 2.11.2 > >>>>> "Accessing an index over a remote file system" explains that there > are > >>>>> issues related to accessing a Lucene index across remote file system > >>>>> including NFS. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm particuarly interested in NFS compatibility, and wondering if > >> there has > >>>>> been any work done to solve or mitigate this problem. Has this issue > >> been > >>>>> addressed? If not, are there some reliable work-arounds that make > this > >>>>> possible at the expense of some sacrifice in other areas? > >>>>> > >>>>> Any information would be greatly appreciated, since my project > heavily > >>>>> depends on the feasibility of this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> /Jong > >>>>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
