No. This is about 1 Solr server. You don't need to do anything with caches.
Otis -- Solr & ElasticSearch Support http://sematext.com/ On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Furkan KAMACI <furkankam...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>
