On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 23:17 +0200, Kovnatsky, Eugene wrote: > Thanks Toke. Very descriptive. A few more questions about your SSD > drive(s) > - what is its current size
4 * 64GB Samsung MCCOE64G5MPP-0VA00 drives. They were pretty cool two years ago and still work very well for search-servers (random writes are not good, but we don't need that for searching): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/flash-ssd-hard-drive,2000-19.html > - do you project any growth in your index size Yes. Hopefully an internal project for maintaining digital objects will change gears during this year. This will result in objects with a lot of meta data and some fulltexts. Depending on economy, the amount of objects will range from 100.000+ to a few million. I would guesstimate that this would mean a doubling of the index size, due to the richness of the new objects. Further out, the projections are unreliable. As a technician I hope for a serious jump in size within a year or two, but I have hoped for that the last two years. Politics does not move as fast as technology. > - if yes then how do you plan to correlate that with your hardware > needs A doubling of the index size makes the existing 256GB/machine a tight fit. I seem to remember that there are two free slots in our servers, so adding 2 new consumer-class SSDs is the obvious upgrade. We're switching to a more memory- and CPU-efficient way of handling sorting and faceting, so we should not need to boost CPU and RAM. Regards, Toke Eskildsen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
