lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andy Berryman" <topd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Setting "disableLuceneLocks" to "true" for Read-Only Mode
Date Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:24:19 GMT
Yes ... You've got it.

However ... If I cant read the index while I'm updating it, then it doesnt
help me much.  This is a requirement.  My architecture guarantees that the
two machines maintianing the index wont work on the same index at the same
time.  But I have nothing that prevents the machines providing the search
from reading the index at the same time as it is being updated by the other
machines.

So it sounds to me like I still need to use the Lucene locking.  And it also
sounds like I need set the "Lock Directory" to be in the shared location
where I'm keeping the index directory.  Because currently each machine is
using its own "Lock Directory" ... which I guess means that the search isnt
currently locked against the writes now.

So if my indexes are located here:
   \\server\indexes\index1\
   \\server\indexes\index2\

I should set the "Lock Directory" for ALL the machines to be something like:
   \\server\indexes\lockdir\

Make sense?

Andy


On 11/1/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> So two machines all that they do is update the index, and they are
> synchronized, right?  Then you have two other machines that provide
> search,
> right?  And your 4th machine simply hosts the index.  Did I get this
> right?
>
> Sure, the search machines can be set as read-only, but they can't read an
> index while it is being updated.  If you are preventing this, then you are
> all set.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Berryman [mailto:topdev1@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:34 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Setting "disableLuceneLocks" to "true" for Read-Only Mode
>
> As for the architecture of my project currently ...
>
> Think about it as involving 5 machines.  1 machine hosts the UNC share
> folder that contains the index directory.  2 machines run an NT service
> that
> looks for changes in the database and then uses the "Reader" to delete
> documents and then the "Writer" to add documents.  These machines
> synchronize their work such that they each arent working on the same index
> at the same time.  2 machines run a web service that provides methods to
> search the index and return results.
>
> As such ... the machines that run the Web Service have NO path that
> involves
> manipulating the index at all.  Therefore, I was thinking that disabling
> the
> locking on those machines would simply reduce to extra overhead that
> doesnt
> really seem necessary for me.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
>
> On 11/1/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > If you have your own solution to guarantee reader/write locking, and
> > it's faster then what Lucene.Net has to offer, you can use it.
> >
> > "disableLuceneLocks" is provided by Lucene.Net so that a Lucene
> > application can be run off a CD/DVD (read-only device) thus, no lock
> > file will be created.
> >
> > BTW, what is your solution?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Berryman [mailto:topdev1@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:23 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Setting "disableLuceneLocks" to "true" for Read-Only Mode
> >
> > What are the benefits of doing this versus just letting Lucene do its
> > normal locking when set to "false"?  I have a scenario where I can
> > gurantee that the processing using the Reader object is ONLY going to
> > read the index and NOT modify it in any way.  It seems to me that
> > disabling the locking would reduce some overhead that I dont really
> > need to care about.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message