lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jan Agermose" <...@agermose.dk>
Subject Re: Lucene Index on NFS Server
Date Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:32:44 GMT
I just think that if You can make ONE part of the system
hardware-failure-safe you really do not need all this - its sounds like a
very expensive setup and you might be able to configure a one server system
to be as-hardware-failure-safe if you used all the mony on this one
computer. Raid 5, dual power and so on... (all very expensive :-) )

Im no expert on HA-systems, but http://linux-ha.org/ is a very good staring
point for looking at FS and stuff.

JMS. If you set up a publish/subscribe system you could publish the
insert/delete/update command and be SURE that if you can deliver the
published message ALL the subscribers will eventual get the message and act
upon it - even messages that are "delivered" during one webservers
downperiod. And this scales if you add more than two servers. If you
implement this using http requests, YOU need to handle storing messages
during downperiods - recovery, and if you move to a 3-server setup insted of
a 2-server setup...

http://java.sun.com/products/jms/tutorial/1_3_1-fcs/doc/basics.html#1023551

Jan Agermose


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morus Walter" <morus.walter@tanto-xipolis.de>
To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Lucene Index on NFS Server


> Hi Jan,
>
> thanks for your answer.
>
> > What part of the webserver are you expecting that will fail? The service
or
> > the computer? Why would the computer hosting NFS be less likely to fail
than
> > your computer hosting the webserver?
> >
> The computer.
> Of course you're right with the nfs server. That's one drawback, but the
> idea is to have a RAID system, that might be switched to another maschine,
> if the first maschine fails. If the RAID system has enough internal
> redundancy it's failure should be reasonable improbable.
> It remains a single point of failure though.
>
> This is not about a very high availablity solution.
> We just want to have a bit more than just relying on one maschine.
> Scenarios like manual switches, if a machine fails, are ok.
>
> > You could use JMS to communicate updates to the to webservers? Or use a
>
> So far I thought about simple http calls, to send the import/delete
> requests to the webservers. They are servlet servers anyway.
> What improvements would you expect from using JMS?
>
> > distributed FS on the to computers hosting the webservers (and not using
a
> > 3. computer)?
> >
> That's an interesting idea. Unfortunately we don't have any experience
> with such a setup. Any suggestions for intel/linux?
>
> And how reliable is such a solution with respect to consistency of the
> lucene index. I mean in this szenario one of the webservers would do the
> import. Would it be safe to simply reopen searchers on the other
webserver?
> Basically that's the same question as for the nfs server.
>
> greetings
> Morus
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message