On 13/07/2005, at 1:34 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: Since this isn't in production yet, I'd rather be proven wrong now
: rather than later! :)
it sounds like what you're doing makes a lot of sense given your
situation, and the nature of your data.
the one thing you might not have concidered yet, which doesn't have to
make a big difference in your overall architecture, but might
influence
the specifics of your design, is the idea that eventually you might
want
to seperate Projects on onto different physical servers, letting
you put
"important" projects on their own server, so they are alllways
available
(even if they are the LRU).
Yes, thanks, initially we won't do this until we understand more
about the profile of usage, and how the IndexSearchers are being aged
out of the cache. We have a mirror index server kept in sync, and
plan to put Apache in front of them (as long as we can prove the 2
parts of the mirror stay in sync, initially we'll just set apache to
favor 1 server, with manual failover until we're completely sure).
We have plans to be implemented eventually that include an Index
partitioning such that not all projects sit on each server, and they
broadcast what project contain to clients.
Paul
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
