lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Swanhart <greenl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What is the best file system for Lucene?
Date Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:16:23 GMT
As a generalisation, SuSE itself is not a lot slower than Windows XP. 
I also very much doubt that filesystem is a factor.  If you want to
test w/out filesystem involvement, simply load your index into a
RAMDirectory instead of using FSDirectory.  That precludes filesystem
overhead in searches.

There are quite a number of factors involved that could be affecting
performance.

First off, 1.8GHz Pentium-M machines are supposed to run at about the
speed of a 2.4GHz machine.  The clock speeds on the mobile chips are
lower, but they tend to perform much better than rated.   I recommend
you take a general benchmark of both machines testing both disk speed
and cpu speed to get a baseline performance comparision.  I also
suggest turning of HT for your benchmarks and performance testing.

Secondly, while the second machine appears to be twice as fast, the
disk could actually perform slower on the Linux box, especially if the
notebook drive has a big (8M) cache like most 7200RPM ata disk drives
do.  I imagine that if you hit the index with lots of simultaneous
searches, that the Linux box would hold its own for much longer than
the XP box simply due to the random seek performance of the scsi disk
combined with scsi command queueing.

RAM speed is a factor too.  Is the p4 a xeon processor?  The older HT
xeons have a much slower bus than the newer p4-m processors.  Memory
speed will be affected accordingly.

I haven't heard of a hard disk referred to as a winchester disk in a
very long time :)

Once you have an idea of how the two machines actually compare
performance-wise, you can then judge how they perform index
operations.  Until then, all your measurements are subjective and you
don't gain much by comparing the two indexing processes.

Justin

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:04:46 -0800 (PST), Sanyi <need4sid@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Regards,
> Sanyi
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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