lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: persistent cache
Date Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:42:42 GMT
On a related note.  Maybe it'd be good to have wiki page of
experiences and possibly stats of various SSD drives?  Either on
Lucene or Solr wiki sites?

2010/2/16 Tim TerlegÄrd <tim.terlegard@gmail.com>:
> 2010/2/15 Toke Eskildsen <te@statsbiblioteket.dk>:
>> From: Tim TerlegÄrd [tim.terlegard@gmail.com]
>>> If the index size is more than you can have in RAM, do you recommend
>>> to split the index to several servers so it can all be in RAM?
>>>
>>> I do expect phrase queries. Total index size is 107 GB. *prx files are
>>> total 65GB and *frq files 38GB. It's probably worth buying more RAM.
>>
>> Have you considered throwing one or more SSD's at the problem? Intel
>> X25-M G2 (or X25-E if you're dictated by your organization to buy
>> enterprise level) is my personal favorite right now. They are, compared
>> to RAM or even high-end spinning harddrives, often quite cost-effective.
>
> I actually tried SSD yesterday. Queries which need to go to disk are
> much faster now. I did expect that warmup for sort fields would be
> much quicker as well, but that seems to be cpu bound. It still takes a
> minute to cache the six sort fields of the 40 million document index.
> But I'm happy the queries are faster with SSD.
>
> Are there any differences among SSD disks. Why is Intel X25-M your favourite?
>
> /Tim
>

Mime
View raw message