lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Miller <Peter.Mil...@objectconsulting.com.au>
Subject RE: How best to handle a reasonable amount to data (25TB+)
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:17:13 GMT
Thanks for the response. Actually, I am more concerned with trying to use an Object Store for
the indexes. The next concern is the use of a local index versus the sharded ones, but I'm
more relaxed about that now after thinking about it. I see that index shards could be up to
100 million documents, so that makes the 1.25 trillion number look reasonable.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,
The Captn.

-----Original Message-----
From: ppp c [mailto:peter.c.eric@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 5:29 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How best to handle a reasonable amount to data (25TB+)

it sounds not an issue of lucene but the logic of your app.
if you're afraid too many docs in one index you can make multiple indexes.
And then search across them, then merge, then over.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Peter Miller < Peter.Miller@objectconsulting.com.au>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a little bit of an unusual set of requirements, and I am 
> looking for advice. I have researched the archives, and seen some 
> relevant posts, but they are fairly old and not specifically a match, 
> so I thought I would give this a try.
>
> We will eventually have about 50TB raw, non-searchable data and 25TB 
> of search attributes to handle in Lucene, across about 1.25 trillion 
> documents. The app is write once, read many. There are many document 
> types involved that have to be able to be searched separately or 
> together, with some common attributes, but also unique ones per type. 
> I plan on using a JCP implementation that uses Lucene under the 
> covers. The data itself is not searchable, only the attributes. I plan 
> to hook the JCP repo
> (ModeShape) up to the OpenStack Object Storage on commodity hardware 
> eventually with 5 machines, each with 24 x 2TB drives. This should 
> allow for redundancy (3 copies), although I would suppose we would add 
> bigger drives as we go on.
>
> Since there is such a lot of data to index (not outrageous amounts for 
> these days, but a bit chunky), I was sort of assuming that the Lucene 
> indexes would go on the object storage solution too, to handle 
> availability and other infrastructure issues. Most of the searches 
> would be date-constrained, so I thought that the indexes could be sharded by date.
>
> There would be a local disk index being built near real time on the 
> JCP hardware that could be regularly merged in with the main indexes 
> on the object storage, I suppose.
>
> Does that make sense, and would it work? Sorry, but this is just 
> theoretical at the moment and I'm not experienced in Lucene, as you 
> can no doubt tell.
>
> I came across a piece that was talking about Hardoop and distributed 
> Solr, http://blog.mgm-tp.com/2010/09/hadoop-log-management-part4/, and 
> I'm now wondering if that would be a superior approach? Or any other suggestions?
>
> Many Thanks,
> The Captn
>

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


Mime
View raw message