[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lucene-user
Subject:    Re: Lucene 5 : any merge performance metrics compared to 4.x?
From:       Michael McCandless <lucene () mikemccandless ! com>
Date:       2015-09-30 17:47:27
Message-ID: CAL8PwkZ9d94cNQM7rru9nDU9-0_QFCBqEuTyqRb1vaN7JqkG2g () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:41 PM, McKinley, James T
<james.mckinley@cengage.com> wrote:

> We really don't have the option of moving to local disk without a signifi=
cant redesign of our systems.  However, we do have the possibility of switc=
hing to iSCSI instead of NFS without changing our hardware, do you happen t=
o know whether iSCSI would be a better protocol for use with Lucene?  Thank=
s!

I don't have any direct experience with iSCSI, but I think it's likely
it would be "correct" since it's a lower level protocol than NFS, i.e.
from the computer's standpoint it thinks it's talking to a local SCSI
drive (maybe)?

But performance wise I'm not sure if it'd be better or worse ... if it
must cross the same network connection as your NFS connection it seems
likely it'd also have performance issues?

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]