Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: AW: What is the best file system for Lucene?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:50:53 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <69D276452CD2904980D5B6AC33C9BE17026CCF47@gtlbmlexs0006.bagmail.net>
Thread-Topic: What is the best file system for Lucene?
Thread-Index: AcTWxA12vbHNGvj/TzWynzg5Bqv/QQADexMw
From: <Wolf-Dietrich.Materna@empolis.com>
To: <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>

Hello,
Sanyi [mailto:need4sid@yahoo.com] wrote:
> I'm testing Lucene 1.4.2 on two very different configs, but=20
> with the same index.
> I'm very surprised by the results: Both systems are searching=20
> at about the same speed, but I'd expect (and I really need)=20
> to run Lucene a lot faster on my stronger config.
>=20
> Config #1 (a notebook):
> WinXP Pro, NTFS, 1.8GHz Pentium-M, 768Megs memory, 7200RPM winchester
>=20
> Config #2 (a desktop PC):
> SuSE 9.1 Pro, resiefs, 3.0GHZ P4 HT (virtually two 3.0GHz=20
> P4s), 3GByte RAM, 15000RPM U320 SCSI winchester
>=20
> You can see that the hardware of #2 is at least twice=20
> better/faster than #1.
> I'm searching the reason and the solution to take advantage=20
> of the better hardware compared to the poor notebook.
> Currently #2 can't amazingly outperform the notebook (#1).
>=20
> The question is: What can be worse in #2 than on the poor notebook?
The notebook is quite good, e.g. the Pentium-M might be faster than
your Pentium 4. At least it has a similar speed, because of it better
internal design. Never compare cpus of different types by their
frequency.=20
Use benchmarks, e.g. SpecInt_2000 <http://www.spec.org/benchmarks.html>
to
compare cpus, but keep in mind that these ratings will be different from

your "real world" application.=20
SPECint2000(base) rating of a P4@3,06Ghz: 1085,
 Details:
<http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20021113-01827.ht
ml>
SPECint2000(base) rating of Pentium M 755@2Ghz: 1541 (!)
  Details:
<http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040614-03081.ht
ml>
Note: this is a workstation using a faster version of your notebook cpu.
I haven't found any Pentium M system with 1,8Ghz in the list.

Maybe your index is small enough to fit into the cache provided by the=20
operating systems. So you wouldn't recognize any difference between your

hard disks.

> 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?
I don't think so. I'm using Windows 2000 pro and SuSE 9.0 and=20
(from my memory) Linux seems to be sightly faster, but I can't
provide any benchmark now.
You should re-run your tests on the same hardware.
Regards,
	Wolf-Dietrich

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