Re: AW: What is the best file system for Lucene?

[Sanyi]

> The notebook is quite good, e.g. the Pentium-M might be faster than
> your Pentium 4. At least it has a similar speed, because of it better
> internal design. Never compare cpus of different types by their
> frequency. 

Ok, this might be true, but:

All of my other tests where the CPU is involved, are running a LOT faster on 
the desktop PC with
the 3GHz P4.
Even other JAVA parts are running a LOT faster. (twice as fast nearly)
So, we can't even say that the JAVA VM takes no advantage of the 3GHz P4 
compared to the 1.8GHz
Pentium-M.
Everything is a LOT faster, except searching with lucene. (which is also a bit 
faster, but
slightly)

> Maybe your index is small enough to fit into the cache provided by the 
> operating systems. So you wouldn't recognize any difference between your
> hard disks.

It is a 3GByte index and I always reboot between tests, so cahcing is not the 
case.

> I don't think so. I'm using Windows 2000 pro and SuSE 9.0 and 
> (from my memory) Linux seems to be sightly faster, but I can't
> provide any benchmark now.

Are you using reiserfs with SuSE?

Regards,
Sanyi



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com 
 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

AW: What is the best file system for Lucene?

[Wolf-Dietrich.Materna]

Hello,
Sanyi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm testing Lucene 1.4.2 on two very different configs, but 
> with the same index.
> I'm very surprised by the results: Both systems are searching 
> at about the same speed, but I'd expect (and I really need) 
> to run Lucene a lot faster on my stronger config.
> 
> Config #1 (a notebook):
> WinXP Pro, NTFS, 1.8GHz Pentium-M, 768Megs memory, 7200RPM winchester
> 
> Config #2 (a desktop PC):
> SuSE 9.1 Pro, resiefs, 3.0GHZ P4 HT (virtually two 3.0GHz 
> P4s), 3GByte RAM, 15000RPM U320 SCSI winchester
> 
> You can see that the hardware of #2 is at least twice 
> better/faster than #1.
> I'm searching the reason and the solution to take advantage 
> of the better hardware compared to the poor notebook.
> Currently #2 can't amazingly outperform the notebook (#1).
> 
> The question is: What can be worse in #2 than on the poor notebook?
The notebook is quite good, e.g. the Pentium-M might be faster than
your Pentium 4. At least it has a similar speed, because of it better
internal design. Never compare cpus of different types by their
frequency. 
Use benchmarks, e.g. SpecInt_2000 
to
compare cpus, but keep in mind that these ratings will be different from

your "real world" application. 
SPECint2000(base) rating of a [EMAIL PROTECTED],06Ghz: 1085,
 Details:

SPECint2000(base) rating of Pentium M [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 1541 (!)
  Details:

Note: this is a workstation using a faster version of your notebook cpu.
I haven't found any Pentium M system with 1,8Ghz in the list.

Maybe your index is small enough to fit into the cache provided by the 
operating systems. So you wouldn't recognize any difference between your

hard disks.

> I can imagine only software problems.
> Which are the sotware parts then?
> 1. The OS. Is SuSE 9.1 a LOT slower than WinXP pro?
> 2. The file system. Is reisefs a LOT slower than NTFS?
I don't think so. I'm using Windows 2000 pro and SuSE 9.0 and 
(from my memory) Linux seems to be sightly faster, but I can't
provide any benchmark now.
You should re-run your tests on the same hardware.
Regards,
Wolf-Dietrich

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]