Discussion in 'Closed Suggestions' started by Adam Howard, Feb 14, 2012.
For those of us who would prefer Sphinx and for those of us who use Ngnix, not Apache / Apache2
I'm not sure where Nginx comes into it.
But given that we have already written a search based on elasticsearch that can scale to effectively infinite levels (given the resources), I can't see that we're going to implement a Sphinx version.
I'm likely going to have to upgrade my hosting in order to accommodate the memory requirements of elasticsearch. That wasn't an issue with sphinx. The difference in hosting costs for me (alone) over the course of a year would likely pay for sphinx development costs.
elasticsearch does not work on Nginx.
The majority of major sites / large sites do not use Apache, but do use Nginx.
Elasticsearch is a separate daemon that runs on your server. It has nothing to do with Nginx or Apache (though it does expose a web server, on port 9200 by default).
Will produce and / or fund 3rd party Sphinx Add-on for XenForo
The memory requirements for elasticsearch outlined in the install thread are going to cost me roughly $500/yr in additional hosting fees.
I'm running sphinx now, and have plenty of memory.
I'm sure there are subjective reasons why elasticsearch is better than Sphinx, I'm aware of several. But there's also the objective argument against using it... it's going to cost more money.
That said, I don't understand the OP's complaint about nginx. I'm running elasticsearch on a machine with nginx now. They get along just fine.
For around 80 USD per month you can get a server with 32 GB RAM. RAM is really cheap now. I am happy that there is an official solution for big board search available directly from the developers. And I got very good support from them when I installed it. It is really good, I'd rely on this solution.
Right.... and what do you think it costs me to change hosts? Because I assure you, it isn't free...
Yeah I thought RAM was real cheap now... $500/yr for some more RAM seems very steep.
Funny that everyone wants to debate what the precise cost of the ram upgrades would be, rather than addressing the fact that 1) it requires more memory and 2) there are direct and indirect costs associated with obtaining those extra resources, so therefore 3) elasticsearch costs more money to support than sphinx.
I wasn't debating it.
Sphinx cost me several hundred of euros for buying, installing and maintaining the forum solution on vbulletin. Not mentioning the time I invested in that technology. I understand that each community is different, so for you sphinx can be more affordable. I am very happy with elasticsearch.
Does elasticsearch on your machine use more or less ram than sphinx did, under the same scenarios?
It sounds like you went from vB 3.8 with sphinx to xF with elasticsearch. What are your allocated/used ram numbers before and after? How many posts in your db?
I have allocated a half, 1 or 2 GB or RAM to elasticsearch, I don't remember. It was according to the advices for a 1-2 Million Post Board. My server has 8 GB RAM and around one million posts, so I have much more RAM than I need. I went from vb 4.1 to xf. To be honest, for this size of a forum I don't think one needs elasticsearch, I just installed it as it may have very minor advantages to the build in xf search.
Using Sphinx in commercial purposes need to be licensed http://sphinxsearch.com/services/embedding/
May be it was one of the reasons choosing elasticsearch.
I am paying 260 USD per month for a server with 4 GB ram hosted in Softlayer ! who is your server host?
Thats pretty steep.
Server XL 8
$199 per month with 16gb ram and 8 cpu cores.
Those memory requirements are based upon a very high userload all hammering the search.
It also assumes that you are using the default mapping, which, given advanced configuration, you could in theory half those memory requirements.
However advanced configuration of ES was not included in those threads as many people venturing into ES for the first time will a) not need it and b) the larger (5m+) boards will most likely already be aware of the advanaced mapping.
1&1 isn't what I'd consider a 'quality' hosting company. Also, based on the bargain price (and the lack of documentation to the contrary), that's likely consumer-grade (rather than enterprise-grade) hardware. It's also more money per month than I'm currently paying.... although the system stats are substantially better.
I don't think any of it is relevant to the current discussion, but I wouldn't want someone reading this to think that was a 'good buy' or anything like that. They're likely to be disappointed when a drive goes bad in their dedi box, and the hosting company takes it offline for half a day while they unrack, service, and rerack the machine.
I would be interested in some more configuration info on ES, though. Anything that can be done to lessen its memory requirements is time well spent.
Separate names with a comma.