lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: Very large number of indices in distributed environment
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:03:59 GMT
Hi Benjamin,

I don't know what exactly your application is doing, but option 2)
sounds the most manageable to me.


--- Benjamin Reitzammer <> wrote:

> Hi,
> we are in the process of planning a search feature of a product and
> we
> are having quite a hard time figuring out the "right" way to do it.
> The requirements for our app are the following:
> 1) Large number of indices (at _least_ 10000)
> 2) The amount of data involved per index is not very high, but
> because
> of the number of indices involved the data set will be something
> about
> 500 - 1000 GB
> 3) The searching capabilities must be fail safe, while it's
> acceptable
> if deletes/updates can take some time.
> 4) The majority of operations will be searching the indices.
> I've followed the mailing list intensively the last month and
> especially the "Best Practices for Distributing Lucene Indexing and
> Searching"
> (
> and "Real time indexing and distribution to lucene on separate boxes
> (long)"
> (
> threads provided some interesting insight.
> But still our requirements are a bit different.
> My thoughts how the above could be handled, so far are:
> 1) Have one *really big* "master"  which handles all tasks related to
> index manipulation. Sync the indices according to Doug's tips
> out
> to a cluster of slaves that are responsible for searching.
> Problem: How to make sure that indices across  slaves are in sync. 
> Big Problem: Syncing of this large number of indices will cause a lot
> of traffic and cause already quite a load on the slaves (not to speak
> of the master)
> 1.1) Is it safe to _search_ (only) an index mounted via NFS? If yes,
> then the search boxes could mount the indices on the master box. But
> this solution would probably lead to some serious perfomance issues
> because of the needed disk I/O on the master.
> Though I'd love to be proven wrong on this one.
> 2) Split up index collection into smaller portions and distribute a
> certain number of indices (~ up to 1000 indices) into smaller
> autonomous clusters, that are completely responsible for their
> collection of indices.
> Problem: How do I keep index distribution dynamic so I don't have to
> hardcode where to look for a certain index (that's not a real lucene
> issue, but more one of distributed computing, but nevertheless I
> thought you guys might know a way to solve it).
> Any ideas on this? 
> Has anyone ever worked with such a large number of Lucene indices
> (and
> the amount of data it involves)?
> I appreciate your help very much.
> Cheers
> Benjamin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message