lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: Clustered Indexing on common network filesystem
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:45:07 GMT
Some quick info:

NFS should work, but I think youll want to be working off the trunk. 
Also, Sharing an index over NFS is supposed to be slow. The standard so 
far, if you are not partitioning the index, is to use a unix/linux 
filesystem and hardlinks + rsync to efficiently share index changes 
across nodes (hard links for instant copy, rsync to only transfer 
changed index files, search the mailing list). If you look at solr you 
can see scripts that give an example of this. I don't think the scripts 
rely on solr. This kind of setup should be quick and simple to 
implement. Same with NFS. An RMI solution that allowed for index 
partitioning would probably be the longest to do.


Zach Bailey wrote:
> Thanks for your response --
> Based on my understanding, hadoop and nutch are essentially the same 
> thing, with nutch being derived from hadoop, and are primarily 
> intended to be standalone applications.
> We are not looking for a standalone application, rather we must use a 
> framework to implement search inside our current content management 
> application. Currently the application search functionality is 
> designed and built around Lucene, so migrating frameworks at this 
> point is not feasible.
> We are currently re-working our back-end to support clustering (in 
> tomcat) and we are looking for information on the migration of Lucene 
> from a single node filesystem index (which is what we use now and hope 
> to continue to use for clients with a single-node deployment) to a 
> shared filesystem index on a mounted network share.
> We prefer to use this strategy because it means we do not have to have 
> two disparate methods of managing indexes for clients who run in a 
> single-node, non-clustered environment versus clients who run in a 
> multiple-node, clustered environment.
> So, hopefully here are some easy questions someone could shed some 
> light on:
> Is this not a recommended method of managing indexes across multiple 
> nodes?
> At this point would people recommend storing an individual index on 
> each node and propagating index updates via a JMS framework rather 
> than attempting to handle it transparently with a single shared index?
> Is the Lucene index code so intimately tied to filesystem semantics 
> that using a shared/networked file system is infeasible at this point 
> in time?
> What would be the quickest time-to-implementation of these strategies 
> (JMS vs. shared FS)? The most robust/least error-prone?
> I really appreciate any insight or response anyone can provide, even 
> if it is a short answer to any of the related topics, "i.e. we 
> implemented clustered search using per-node indexing with JMS update 
> propagation and it works great", or even something as simple as "don't 
> use a shared filesystem at this point".
> Cheers,
> -Zach
> testn wrote:
>> Why don't you check out Hadoop and Nutch? It should provide what you are
>> looking for.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message