Menu
▾
▴
[Archive-access-discuss] indexing best practices Wayback 1.x.x Indexers
|
From: Jones, G. <gj...@lo...> - 2013-06-04 18:55:26
|
We have not found issues here at the Library as our collection has gotten bigger. In the past, we have had separate access points to the each "collection" but are in the process of combining our content into one access point for a more cohesive collection. However, we have found challenges in indexing and combining those indexes, specifically due to deduplicated content. We have content beginning in 2009 that has been deduplicated using the WARC/revisit field. This is what we have think we have figured out. If anyone has any other information on these indexers, we would love to know about it. We posted a question to the listserv about 2 years ago and didn't get any comments back: Wayback 1.4.x Indexers -The Wayback 1.4.2 indexer produces "warc/revisit" fields in the file content index that Wayback 1.4.2 cannot process and display. -When we re-indexed the same content with Wayback 1.4.0 indexer, Wayback was able to handle the revisit entries. Since the "warc/revisit" field didn't exist at the time that Wayback 1.4.0 was released, we suppose that Wayback 1.4.0 responds to those entries as it would to any date instance link where content was missing - by redirecting to the next most temporally-proximate capture. -Wayback 1.6.0 can handle file content indexes with "warc/revisit" fields, as well as the older 1.4.0 file content indexes -We have been unable to get Wayback 1.6.0 indexer to run on an AIX server. -Wayback 1.6.0 indexer writes an alpha key code to the top line of the file content index. If you are merging indexes and resorting manually, be sure to remove that line after the index is generated. Combining cdx's from multiple indexers -As for the issue on combining the indexes, it has to do with the number of fields that 1.4.0 / 1.4.2 and 1.6.X generate. The older version generates a different version of the index, with a different subset of fields. -Wayback 1.6.0 can handle both indexes, so it doesn't matter if you have your content indexed with either of the two. However, if you plan to combine the indexes into one big index, they need to match. -The specific problem we had was with sections of an ongoing crawl. 2009 content was indexed with 1.4.X, but 2009+2010 content was indexed with 1.6.X, so if we merge and sort, we would get the 2009 entries twice, because they do not match exactly (different number of fields). -The field configurations for the two versions (as we have them are) 1.4.2: CDX N b h m s k r V g 1.6.1: CDX N b a m s k r M V g For definitions of the fields here is an old reference: http://archive.org/web/researcher/cdx_legend.php Gina Jones Ignacio Garcia del Campo Laura Graham -----Original Message----- From: arc...@li... [mailto:arc...@li...] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:03 AM To: arc...@li... Subject: Archive-access-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2 Send Archive-access-discuss mailing list submissions to arc...@li... To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archive-access-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arc...@li... You can reach the person managing the list at arc...@li... When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Archive-access-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Best practices for indexing a growing 2+ billion document collection (Kristinn Sigur?sson) 2. Re: Best practices for indexing a growing 2+ billion document collection (Erik Hetzner) 3. Re: Best practices for indexing a growing 2+ billion document collection (Colin Rosenthal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:39:40 +0000 From: Kristinn Sigur?sson <kri...@la...> Subject: [Archive-access-discuss] Best practices for indexing a growing 2+ billion document collection To: "arc...@li..." <arc...@li...> Message-ID: <E48...@bl...khlada.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear all, We are planning on updating our Wayback installation and I would like to poll your collective wisdom on the best approach for managing the Wayback index. Currently, our collection is about 2.2 billion items. It is also growing at a rate of approximately 350-400 million records per year. The obvious approach would be to use a sorted CDX file (or files) as the index. I'm, however, concerned about its performance at this scale. Additionally, updating a CDX based index can be troublesome. Especially as we would like to update it continuously as new material is ingested. Any relevant experience and advice you could share on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Mr. Kristinn Sigur?sson Head of IT National and University Library of Iceland ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Landsb?kasafn ?slands - H?sk?lab?kasafn | Arngr?msg?tu 3 - 107 Reykjav?k S?mi/Tel: +354 5255600 | www.landsbokasafn.is ------------------------------------------------------------------------- fyrirvari/disclaimer - http://fyrirvari.landsbokasafn.is ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:49:04 -0700 From: Erik Hetzner <eri...@uc...> Subject: Re: [Archive-access-discuss] Best practices for indexing a growing 2+ billion document collection To: Kristinn Sigur?sson <kri...@la...> Cc: "arc...@li..." <arc...@li...> Message-ID: <201...@ma...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" At Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:39:40 +0000, Kristinn Sigur?sson wrote: > > Dear all, > > We are planning on updating our Wayback installation and I would like > to poll your collective wisdom on the best approach for managing the > Wayback index. > > Currently, our collection is about 2.2 billion items. It is also > growing at a rate of approximately 350-400 million records per year. > > The obvious approach would be to use a sorted CDX file (or files) as > the index. I'm, however, concerned about its performance at this > scale. Additionally, updating a CDX based index can be troublesome. > Especially as we would like to update it continuously as new material > is ingested. > > Any relevant experience and advice you could share on this topic would > be greatly appreciated. Hi Kristinn, We use 4 different CDX files. One is updated every ten minutes, one hourly, one daily, and one monthly. We use the unix sort command to sort. This has worked pretty well for us. We aren?t doing it in the most efficient manner, and we will probably switch to sorting with hadoop at some point, but it works pretty well. best, Erik -------------- next part -------------- Sent from my free software system <http://fsf.org/>. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:18 +0200 From: Colin Rosenthal <cs...@st...> Subject: Re: [Archive-access-discuss] Best practices for indexing a growing 2+ billion document collection To: arc...@li... Message-ID: <51A...@st...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed On 06/03/2013 08:49 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote: > At Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:39:40 +0000, > Kristinn Sigur?sson wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> We are planning on updating our Wayback installation and I would like >> to poll your collective wisdom on the best approach for managing the >> Wayback index. >> >> Currently, our collection is about 2.2 billion items. It is also >> growing at a rate of approximately 350-400 million records per year. >> >> The obvious approach would be to use a sorted CDX file (or files) as >> the index. I'm, however, concerned about its performance at this >> scale. Additionally, updating a CDX based index can be troublesome. >> Especially as we would like to update it continuously as new material >> is ingested. >> >> Any relevant experience and advice you could share on this topic >> would be greatly appreciated. > Hi Kristinn, > > We use 4 different CDX files. One is updated every ten minutes, one > hourly, one daily, and one monthly. We use the unix sort command to > sort. This has worked pretty well for us. We aren?t doing it in the > most efficient manner, and we will probably switch to sorting with > hadoop at some point, but it works pretty well. > > best, Erik Hi Kristinn, Our strategy for building cdx indexes is described at https://sbforge.org/display/NASDOC321/Wayback+Configuration#WaybackConfiguration-AggregatorApplication . Essentially we have multiple threads creating unsorted cdx files for all new arc/warc files in the archive. These are then sorted and merged into an intermediate index file. When the intermediate file grows larger than 100MB, it is merged with the current main index file, and when that grows larger than 50GB we rollover to a new main index file. We currently have about 5TB total cdx index. This includes 16 older cdx files of size 150GB-300GB, built by handrolled scripts before we had a functional automatic indexing workflow. We would be fascinated to hear if anyone is using an entirely different strategy (e.g. bdb) for a large archive. One of our big issues at the moment is QA of our cdx files. How can we be sure that our indexes actually cover all the files and records in the archive? Colin Rosenthal IT-Developer Netarkivet, Denmark ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services 3. A single system of record for all IT processes http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Archive-access-discuss mailing list Arc...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archive-access-discuss End of Archive-access-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2 ***************************************************** |
