Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-13 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
Hi Paul, Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier example of acessing documents in a chronologically sorted order (which might be the same as index insert order). Thanks for confirming it. Otis - Original Message From: Paul Elschot IndexReader.doc(docId

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-13 Thread John Haxby
Andrzej Bialecki wrote: None of you mentioned yet the aspect that 4k is the memory page size on IA32 hardware. This in itself would favor any operations using multiple of this size, and penalize operations using amounts below this size. For normal I/O it will rarely make any difference at al

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-13 Thread Andrzej Bialecki
Hi, None of you mentioned yet the aspect that 4k is the memory page size on IA32 hardware. This in itself would favor any operations using multiple of this size, and penalize operations using amounts below this size. -- Best regards, Andrzej Bialecki <>< ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ ___

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-12 Thread Paul Elschot
On Sunday 12 February 2006 22:48, John Haxby wrote: > Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > > >I'm somewhat familiar with ext3 vs. ReiserFS stuff, but that's not really what I'm after (finding a better/faster FS). What I'm wondering is about different block sizes on a single (ext3) FS. > >If I understand b

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-12 Thread Byron Miller
I just through in the reiserfs suggestion since it's usually nott a 1k vs 4k blocksize issue as much as it is how many contiguous files consume those blocksizes. If they're small and random reiserfs will smoke ext3, if they're large ext3 will be lighter weight and if they're really large and somewh

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-12 Thread John Haxby
Otis Gospodnetic wrote: I'm somewhat familiar with ext3 vs. ReiserFS stuff, but that's not really what I'm after (finding a better/faster FS). What I'm wondering is about different block sizes on a single (ext3) FS. If I understand block sizes correctly, they represent a chunk of data that th

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-12 Thread Yonik Seeley
On 2/12/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I understand block sizes correctly, they represent a chunk of data that > the FS will read in a single read. The filesystem block size is just the logical size of allocation units for the FS, and does not put any cap on the amount of da

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-12 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
ads and disk arm movement, and Robert Engels talking about Nio and block sizes, so they might know more about this stuff. Thanks, Otis - Original Message From: Byron Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Fri 10 Feb 2006 10:02:35 PM EST Subject: Re: Perf

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-11 Thread peter royal
On Feb 10, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: I'm wondering if anyone has tested Lucene indexing/search performance with different file system block sizes? I just realized one of the servers where I run a lot of Lucene indexing and searching has an FS with blocks of only 1K in size

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-10 Thread Byron Miller
what block size, > theoretically at least, should perform better. > > Thanks, > Otis > > - Original Message > From: Michael D. Curtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Fri 10 Feb 2006 05:05:07 PM EST > Subject: Re: Performance and

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-10 Thread Michael D. Curtin
Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Michael, Actually, one more thing - you said you changed the store/BufferedIndexOutput.BUFFER_SIZE from 1024 to 4096 and that turned out to yield the fastest indexing. Does your FS block size also happen to be 4k (dumpe2fs output) on that FC3 box? If so, I wonder if

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-10 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
coincidence... Thanks, Otis - Original Message From: Michael D. Curtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Fri 10 Feb 2006 05:05:07 PM EST Subject: Re: Performance and FS block size Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hi, > > I'm wondering if anyo

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-10 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
t least, should perform better. Thanks, Otis - Original Message From: Michael D. Curtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Fri 10 Feb 2006 05:05:07 PM EST Subject: Re: Performance and FS block size Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hi, > > I'm won

Re: Performance and FS block size

2006-02-10 Thread Michael D. Curtin
Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Hi, I'm wondering if anyone has tested Lucene indexing/search performance with different file system block sizes? I just realized one of the servers where I run a lot of Lucene indexing and searching has an FS with blocks of only 1K in size (typically they are 4k or

Performance and FS block size

2006-02-10 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone has tested Lucene indexing/search performance with different file system block sizes? I just realized one of the servers where I run a lot of Lucene indexing and searching has an FS with blocks of only 1K in size (typically they are 4k or 8k, I believe), so I starte