I don't want to bother but I try to understand that part: "When yo perform a commit in solr you have (for an instant) two versions of the index. The commit produces new segments (with new documents, new deletions, etc). After creating these new segments a new index searcher is created and its caches begin to autowarm. At this point the old index searcher that you were using is still active receiving requests. After the new index searcher finishes loading and autowarming the old searcher is discarded."
So does it mean that when I have multiple Solr servers and a shared index, I should synchronize the caches at that different machines RAMs? 2013/4/17 Otis Gospodnetic <otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> > Yesterday, we spent 1 hour with a client looking at their cluster's > performance metrics SPM, their indexing logs, etc. trying to figure > out why some indexing was slower than it should have been. We traced > issues to network hickups, to VMs that would move from host to host, > etc. Really fancy and powerful system in terms of hardware resources, > but in the end a bit too far from just locally attached HDD or SDD > that would not have issues like the ones we found. I'd stay away from > NFS for the same reason - it's another moving part on the other side > of the network. > > Otis > -- > Solr & ElasticSearch Support > http://sematext.com/ > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Furkan KAMACI <furkankam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Walter; > > > > You said: "It is not safe to share Solr index files between two Solr > > servers". Why do you think like that? > > > > > > 2013/4/16 Tim Vaillancourt <t...@elementspace.com> > > > >> If centralization of storage is your goal by choosing NFS, iSCSI works > >> reasonably well with SOLR indexes, although good local-storage will > always > >> be the overall winner. > >> > >> I noticed a near 5% degredation in overall search performance (casual > >> testing, nothing scientific) when moving a 40-50GB indexes to iSCSI > (10GBe > >> network) from a 4x7200rpm RAID 10 local SATA disk setup. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> > >> On 15/04/13 09:59 AM, Walter Underwood wrote: > >> > >>> Solr 4.2 does have field compression which makes smaller indexes. That > >>> will reduce the amount of network traffic. That probably does not help > >>> much, because I think the latency of NFS is what causes problems. > >>> > >>> wunder > >>> > >>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Ali, Saqib wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello Walter, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the response. That has been my experience in the past as > well. > >>>> But I was wondering if there new are things in Solr 4 and NFS 4.1 that > >>>> make > >>>> the storing of indexes on a NFS mount feasible. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Saqib > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Walter Underwood<wunder@wunderwood. > ** > >>>> org <wun...@wunderwood.org>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ali, Saqib wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are there any issues with storing Solr Indexes on a NFS share? Also > any > >>>>>> recommendations for using NFS for Solr indexes? > >>>>>> > >>>>> I recommend that you do not put Solr indexes on NFS. > >>>>> > >>>>> It can be very slow, I measured indexing as 100X slower on NFS a few > >>>>> years > >>>>> ago. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is not safe to share Solr index files between two Solr servers, so > >>>>> there is no benefit to NFS. > >>>>> > >>>>> wunder > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Walter Underwood > >>>>> wun...@wunderwood.org > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>> Walter Underwood > >>> wun...@wunderwood.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >
