Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7756 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2004 13:24:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Nov 2004 13:24:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 37429 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2004 13:23:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 37409 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2004 13:23:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Users List" Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 37395 invoked by uid 99); 30 Nov 2004 13:23:49 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from web21323.mail.yahoo.com (HELO web21323.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.175.209) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:23:49 -0800 Received: (qmail 87220 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Nov 2004 13:23:47 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=FObArT0BMV5yRiTmkXaZQwJs5WZ3u0Q34NfNmLTj+UavKzPI46HuyZ9DgXbPRrKBuGw5lW01eWLYDW0iBwpTXc6YZIutx7jbtYFmsjphQzTqfxHqrvGTr8K2ujQ4KWESkhfpREBPEp0cQk5+VMN+5Gt/t1WvWV+6y7YQgiMfrMs= ; Message-ID: <20041130132347.87218.qmail@web21323.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [193.226.211.176] by web21323.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:23:47 PST Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:23:47 -0800 (PST) From: Sanyi Subject: Re: What is the best file system for Lucene? To: Lucene Users List In-Reply-To: <41AC6E24.9070509@scalix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > How large is the index? If it's less than a couple of GByte then it > will be entirely in memory It is 3GBytes big and it will grow a lot. I have to search from the HDD which is very fast compared to the notebook's HDD. Average seek time: Notebook: 8-9ms Desktop: 3.9ms Data read: Notebook: max. ~20MBytes/sec Desktop: 60-80MBytes/sec So, if the bottleneck is the HDD, it has to be 2x-3x faster on the desktop system. Except if reiserfs is a lot slower than NTFS. > For example (and this is only an example) looking up a hostname in the > DNS will take about the same time on almost any machine you can get hold of. Ok, but I have very simple and pure tests and everything is measured part-by-part. ..and every parts speeds up a lot on the desltop system, except the lucene search part. > You don't say how you're measuring search performance and you don't say > what you're seeing. I call my java program from command line on both systems, like: search hello Then it searches for bravo and collects the elapsed milliseconds between every call to anything. Then it displays the results. It is very simple. > Also, what's the load on the system while you're > running the tests? gkrellm on Linux is very useful as an overall view > -- are you CPU bound, are you seeing lots of disk traffic? Is the > system actually more-or-less idle? Thanx for the hint. Since my search searches for only 30 hits, it completes too fastly to let me monitor it real-time. Anyway, if reiserfs will prove to be fast enough, I'll search for other reasons and will perform longer tests for real-time monitoring. Regards, Sanyi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org