Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=jQb3Tk4X2U6vzBCTratk7e3Ugma0o75fxkhjOKql0BcLEmNzmx9XKDrvrijkBvTfGgV2aLqEzNBvwihSDSAC/vXcIQgbXvJ0dNzDVhF/5L7IABJaRzXku72Q7FIsvPj89fAchGaHy31GRXEfLiZxIjA6QhCPZZ5MfuDgS2PvZNc=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060205154705.49702.qmail@web8609.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:47:05 -0800 (PST)
From: sivan v <sivanarul_v@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Best Lucene hardware
To: general@lucene.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <200602040207.k1427ePl030491@sumobrain.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1305094458-1139154425=:48859"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--0-1305094458-1139154425=:48859
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

hello Mr.james,
   
  u can get some info from the following link...
   
  http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/benchmarks.html
   
   
James <james@ryley.com> wrote:
  Hi,


I'm wondering if someone familiar with the way Lucene accesses data could
give their opinion on whether hard drive seek time or throughput is more
important in Lucene performance, assuming a very large index that cannot fit
in RAM. I'm looking at buying some new servers that will be running Lucene,
and wonder if I should go with SCSI RAID, or if perhaps spending the extra
money on processors (and going with SATA for drives) is better. I'm not
sure where the bottleneck is in an average system, and I don't have any SCSI
RAID systems available for testing.


Thanks,

James


      Enduringly your's,
  V.Sivanarul.,M.Tech.


---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
--0-1305094458-1139154425=:48859--