# Primary balancing

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [October 7, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536 "2011-10-07T02:24:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 18\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jjasinek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b782af/32.png) [@jjasinek](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/jjasinek)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/1 "2011-10-07T02:24:19Z")

</div>

shay,

I know that shards are usually balanced amongst the nodes in an  
elasticsearch cluster, but is there a way to balance the primaries.  
We have a three node cluster with 3 shards and 1 replica. We have  
observed recently that all three of the primary shards are assigned to  
one node. Based on the fact that indexing is routed to the primary,  
this could mean that one machine is dedicatedbto indexing. Is there a  
way to balance the primaries against nodes, or is it best to increase  
shards to 6? I'm afraid if I do that, there is still no guarantee  
that each node will have close to two primaries on it.

Jason

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/2 "2011-10-08T20:07:14Z")

</div>

Even if you have 3 primaries allocated on a single node, with replication,  
other nodes will also be busy indexing. In general, there isn't a lot of  
difference between a primary and a replica, so there isn't an effort to  
balance primaries (or force it). There are some cases where primaries might  
work a bit more, for example, when doing searches / get and explicitly  
asking them to be executed on the primary shard, but thats not the common  
case.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:24 AM, jjasinek [jjasinek@gmail.com](mailto:jjasinek@gmail.com) wrote:

> shay,
> 
> I know that shards are usually balanced amongst the nodes in an  
> elasticsearch cluster, but is there a way to balance the primaries.  
> We have a three node cluster with 3 shards and 1 replica. We have  
> observed recently that all three of the primary shards are assigned to  
> one node. Based on the fact that indexing is routed to the primary,  
> this could mean that one machine is dedicatedbto indexing. Is there a  
> way to balance the primaries against nodes, or is it best to increase  
> shards to 6? I'm afraid if I do that, there is still no guarantee  
> that each node will have close to two primaries on it.
> 
> Jason

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/3 "2011-10-08T21:16:25Z")

</div>

for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in the amazon cloud?  
Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2 hard drive instance and is 64 bits.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/4 "2011-10-12T18:29:26Z")

</div>

Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4  
small instances?

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com) wrote:

> for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in  
> the amazon cloud?  
> Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2  
> hard drive instance and is 64 bits.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/5 "2011-10-12T22:24:41Z")

</div>

First thank you for your attention.

In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
and have two hard drive.

Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
this is best 4 small or 1 large.

My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
average.  
Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?

Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.

2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)

> Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4 small instances?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in the amazon cloud?  
> > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2 hard drive instance and is 64 bits.

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/6 "2011-10-12T22:26:01Z")

</div>

correct:  
My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
average.

2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):

> First thank you for your attention.
> 
> In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
> and have two hard drive.
> 
> Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
> this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> 
> My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> average.  
> Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> 
> Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> 
> 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> 
> > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4 small instances?
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com) wrote:
> > 
> > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in the amazon cloud?  
> > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2 hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pavel\_Penchev](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ec9cab/32.png) [@Pavel\_Penchev](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Pavel_Penchev)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 7:12am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/7 "2011-10-13T07:12:49Z")

</div>

Hi,

we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
instances. The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below  
200ms) but the indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we  
have requirements for indexing as well). In comparison the large  
instances handle both search and indexing with 95% below 200ms.

Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and the  
searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.

Regards,  
Pavel

On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:

> correct:  
> My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> average.
> 
> 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia[gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> 
> > First thank you for your attention.
> > 
> > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
> > and have two hard drive.
> > 
> > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
> > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > 
> > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > average.  
> > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > 
> > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > 
> > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon[kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > 
> > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4 small instances?
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo[gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in the amazon cloud?  
> > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2 hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > 
> > --  
> > Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/8 "2011-10-13T13:09:08Z")

</div>

Hi Pavel,  
Thanks for all.

How many large instance do you have ?

2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):

> Hi,
> 
> we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large instances.  
> The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms) but the  
> indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have requirements  
> for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle both search  
> and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> 
> Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and the  
> searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> 
> Regards,  
> Pavel
> 
> On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> 
> correct:  
> My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> average.
> 
> 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> 
> First thank you for your attention.
> 
> In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
> and have two hard drive.
> 
> Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
> this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> 
> My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> average.  
> Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> 
> Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> 
> 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> 
> Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4  
> small instances?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in  
> the amazon cloud?  
> Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2  
> hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 12:12pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/9 "2011-10-14T12:12:00Z")

</div>

In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply because  
of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency (at least  
based on what users have seen).

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)wrote:

> Hi Pavel,  
> Thanks for all.
> 
> How many large instance do you have ?
> 
> 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > instances.  
> > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms) but the  
> > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > requirements  
> > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle both  
> > search  
> > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > 
> > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and the  
> > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > 
> > Regards,  
> > Pavel
> > 
> > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > 
> > correct:  
> > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > average.
> > 
> > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > 
> > First thank you for your attention.
> > 
> > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
> > and have two hard drive.
> > 
> > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
> > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > 
> > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > average.  
> > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > 
> > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > 
> > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > 
> > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4  
> > small instances?
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large in  
> > the amazon cloud?  
> > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2  
> > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > 
> > --  
> > Gustavo Maia
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/10 "2011-10-17T17:57:15Z")

</div>

Thank you.

I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
(c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.

So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
that best ?

Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size 15GB,  
thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?

2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):

> In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply because  
> of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency (at least  
> based on what users have seen).
> 
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Pavel,  
> > Thanks for all.
> > 
> > How many large instance do you have ?
> > 
> > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > > instances.  
> > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms) but  
> > > the  
> > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > requirements  
> > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle both  
> > > search  
> > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > 
> > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and the  
> > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > 
> > > Regards,  
> > > Pavel
> > > 
> > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > 
> > > correct:  
> > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > average.
> > > 
> > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > 
> > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > 
> > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
> > > and have two hard drive.
> > > 
> > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
> > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > 
> > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > average.  
> > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > 
> > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > 
> > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > 
> > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs. 4  
> > > small instances?
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large  
> > > in  
> > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have 2  
> > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > Gustavo Maia
> > 
> > --  
> > Gustavo Maia

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 11:49pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/11 "2011-10-17T23:49:48Z")

</div>

Heya,

Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge (more  
memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
to outweigh faster CPU.

Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data locations  
does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a singel shard  
allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.

-shay.banon

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)wrote:

> Thank you.
> 
> I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> 
> So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
> which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
> that best ?
> 
> Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size 15GB,  
> thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> 
> 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> 
> > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply  
> > because  
> > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency (at  
> > least  
> > based on what users have seen).
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > Thanks for all.
> > > 
> > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > 
> > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > > > instances.  
> > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms) but  
> > > > the  
> > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > > requirements  
> > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle both  
> > > > search  
> > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > 
> > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and  
> > > > the  
> > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,  
> > > > Pavel
> > > > 
> > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > correct:  
> > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > average.
> > > > 
> > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > 
> > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > 
> > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64 bits  
> > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > 
> > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt whether  
> > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > 
> > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > average.  
> > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > 
> > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > 
> > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance Vs.  
> > > > 4  
> > > > small instances?
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a large  
> > > > in  
> > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large have  
> > > > 2  
> > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > 
> > > > --  
> > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > Gustavo Maia
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/12 "2011-10-18T20:51:13Z")

</div>

So, I'd better install the machine (m1.xlarge) 4 ES, an ES for each point  
data to different HD. It should be better because at the time of the search  
are going to be in parallel searches using 4 hds, with different processors.  
I set up each instance of ES with 3GB of ram.

If I use the machine (m1.large) I would install only 2 ES, one for each  
allocate the same HD and 3GB of ram for each ES.

is it?

\*\*\*\*\*\* m1.xlarge Config

15 GB memory  
8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
1,690 GB instance storage  
64-bit platform  
I/O Performance: High  
API name: m1.xlarge

\*\*\*\*\*\* m1.large Config:

7.5 GB memory  
4 EC2 Compute Units (2 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
850 GB instance storage  
64-bit platform  
I/O Performance: High  
API name: m1.large

//###################################################################

2011/10/17 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):

> Heya,  
> Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge (more  
> memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
> to outweigh faster CPU.  
> Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data locations  
> does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a singel  
> shard  
> allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.  
> -shay.banon
> 
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> wrote:
> 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> > (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> > 
> > So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
> > which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
> > that best ?
> > 
> > Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size 15GB,  
> > thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> > 
> > 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > 
> > > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply  
> > > because  
> > > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency (at  
> > > least  
> > > based on what users have seen).
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > > Thanks for all.
> > > > 
> > > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > > 
> > > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > > > > instances.  
> > > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms)  
> > > > > but  
> > > > > the  
> > > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > > > requirements  
> > > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle both  
> > > > > search  
> > > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and  
> > > > > the  
> > > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,  
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > correct:  
> > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > average.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > > 
> > > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64  
> > > > > bits  
> > > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> > > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt  
> > > > > whether  
> > > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > average.  
> > > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance  
> > > > > Vs.  
> > > > > 4  
> > > > > small instances?
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a  
> > > > > large  
> > > > > in  
> > > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large  
> > > > > have 2  
> > > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --  
> > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > 
> > > > --  
> > > > Gustavo Maia
> > 
> > --  
> > Gustavo Maia

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/13 "2011-10-18T21:06:49Z")

</div>

You mean start 3 ES processes on the same machine? why?

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)wrote:

> So, I'd better install the machine (m1.xlarge) 4 ES, an ES for each point  
> data to different HD. It should be better because at the time of the search  
> are going to be in parallel searches using 4 hds, with different processors.  
> I set up each instance of ES with 3GB of ram.
> 
> If I use the machine (m1.large) I would install only 2 ES, one for each  
> allocate the same HD and 3GB of ram for each ES.
> 
> is it?
> 
> \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.xlarge Config
> 
> 15 GB memory  
> 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> 1,690 GB instance storage  
> 64-bit platform  
> I/O Performance: High  
> API name: m1.xlarge
> 
> \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.large Config:
> 
> 7.5 GB memory  
> 4 EC2 Compute Units (2 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> 850 GB instance storage  
> 64-bit platform  
> I/O Performance: High  
> API name: m1.large
> 
> //###################################################################
> 
> 2011/10/17 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> 
> > Heya,  
> > Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge (more  
> > memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
> > to outweigh faster CPU.  
> > Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data  
> > locations  
> > does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a singel  
> > shard  
> > allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.  
> > -shay.banon
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Thank you.
> > > 
> > > I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> > > (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> > > 
> > > So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
> > > which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
> > > that best ?
> > > 
> > > Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size 15GB,  
> > > thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> > > 
> > > 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > 
> > > > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply  
> > > > because  
> > > > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency (at  
> > > > least  
> > > > based on what users have seen).
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > > > Thanks for all.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > > > > > instances.  
> > > > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms)  
> > > > > > but  
> > > > > > the  
> > > > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > > > > requirements  
> > > > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle  
> > > > > > both  
> > > > > > search  
> > > > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have and  
> > > > > > the  
> > > > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards,  
> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > correct:  
> > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > average.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64  
> > > > > > bits  
> > > > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three machines  
> > > > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt  
> > > > > > whether  
> > > > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > average.  
> > > > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance  
> > > > > > Vs.  
> > > > > > 4  
> > > > > > small instances?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a  
> > > > > > large  
> > > > > > in  
> > > > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large  
> > > > > > have 2  
> > > > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --  
> > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > 
> > > > > --  
> > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > Gustavo Maia
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/14 "2011-10-18T21:22:59Z")

</div>

Yes, Is not it better?

For my experimenting with the lucene, is better distribute the load between  
the drives. Using an ES for each hard drive, I guarantee a better  
distribution between HD. Ex: One shard of 15GB per HD. During the seach i  
will have better parallelism since I have one HD and one processor for a  
specific search.

ex: When the User do a search we have the parallel processing of 4 hds and 4  
processors, ensuring a faster response, since it was set up only one shard  
by ES.

2011/10/18 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)

> You mean start 3 ES processes on the same machine? why?
> 
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> wrote:
> 
> > So, I'd better install the machine (m1.xlarge) 4 ES, an ES for each point  
> > data to different HD. It should be better because at the time of the search  
> > are going to be in parallel searches using 4 hds, with different processors.  
> > I set up each instance of ES with 3GB of ram.
> > 
> > If I use the machine (m1.large) I would install only 2 ES, one for each  
> > allocate the same HD and 3GB of ram for each ES.
> > 
> > is it?
> > 
> > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.xlarge Config
> > 
> > 15 GB memory  
> > 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > 1,690 GB instance storage  
> > 64-bit platform  
> > I/O Performance: High  
> > API name: m1.xlarge
> > 
> > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.large Config:
> > 
> > 7.5 GB memory  
> > 4 EC2 Compute Units (2 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > 850 GB instance storage  
> > 64-bit platform  
> > I/O Performance: High  
> > API name: m1.large
> > 
> > //###################################################################
> > 
> > 2011/10/17 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > 
> > > Heya,  
> > > Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge  
> > > (more  
> > > memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
> > > to outweigh faster CPU.  
> > > Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data  
> > > locations  
> > > does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a singel  
> > > shard  
> > > allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.  
> > > -shay.banon
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> > > > (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> > > > 
> > > > So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
> > > > which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
> > > > that best ?
> > > > 
> > > > Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size 15GB,  
> > > > thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> > > > 
> > > > 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > > 
> > > > > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply  
> > > > > because  
> > > > > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency (at  
> > > > > least  
> > > > > based on what users have seen).
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > > > > Thanks for all.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > > > > > > instances.  
> > > > > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below 200ms)  
> > > > > > > but  
> > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > > > > > requirements  
> > > > > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle  
> > > > > > > both  
> > > > > > > search  
> > > > > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have  
> > > > > > > and  
> > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards,  
> > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > correct:  
> > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > > > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is 64  
> > > > > > > bits  
> > > > > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three  
> > > > > > > machines  
> > > > > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt  
> > > > > > > whether  
> > > > > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > > average.  
> > > > > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large instance  
> > > > > > > Vs.  
> > > > > > > 4  
> > > > > > > small instances?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo \<[gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)
> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a  
> > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > in  
> > > > > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and large  
> > > > > > > have 2  
> > > > > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --  
> > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > 
> > > > --  
> > > > Gustavo Maia
> > 
> > --  
> > Gustavo Maia

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/15 "2011-10-18T21:29:15Z")

</div>

In master version, you can specify several data locations so a single  
instance can use several drives, I thought you were referring to that in  
your previous mail.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)wrote:

> Yes, Is not it better?
> 
> For my experimenting with the lucene, is better distribute the load between  
> the drives. Using an ES for each hard drive, I guarantee a better  
> distribution between HD. Ex: One shard of 15GB per HD. During the seach i  
> will have better parallelism since I have one HD and one processor for a  
> specific search.
> 
> ex: When the User do a search we have the parallel processing of 4 hds and  
> 4 processors, ensuring a faster response, since it was set up only one shard  
> by ES.
> 
> 2011/10/18 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> 
> > You mean start 3 ES processes on the same machine? why?
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > So, I'd better install the machine (m1.xlarge) 4 ES, an ES for each  
> > > point data to different HD. It should be better because at the time of the  
> > > search are going to be in parallel searches using 4 hds, with different  
> > > processors.  
> > > I set up each instance of ES with 3GB of ram.
> > > 
> > > If I use the machine (m1.large) I would install only 2 ES, one for each  
> > > allocate the same HD and 3GB of ram for each ES.
> > > 
> > > is it?
> > > 
> > > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.xlarge Config
> > > 
> > > 15 GB memory  
> > > 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > > 1,690 GB instance storage  
> > > 64-bit platform  
> > > I/O Performance: High  
> > > API name: m1.xlarge
> > > 
> > > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.large Config:
> > > 
> > > 7.5 GB memory  
> > > 4 EC2 Compute Units (2 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > > 850 GB instance storage  
> > > 64-bit platform  
> > > I/O Performance: High  
> > > API name: m1.large
> > > 
> > > //###################################################################
> > > 
> > > 2011/10/17 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > 
> > > > Heya,  
> > > > Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge  
> > > > (more  
> > > > memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
> > > > to outweigh faster CPU.  
> > > > Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data  
> > > > locations  
> > > > does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a singel  
> > > > shard  
> > > > allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.  
> > > > -shay.banon
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> > > > > (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
> > > > > which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
> > > > > that best ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size 15GB,  
> > > > > thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon, simply  
> > > > > > because  
> > > > > > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency  
> > > > > > (at  
> > > > > > least  
> > > > > > based on what users have seen).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > > > > > Thanks for all.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the large  
> > > > > > > > instances.  
> > > > > > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below  
> > > > > > > > 200ms) but  
> > > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > > > > > > requirements  
> > > > > > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances handle  
> > > > > > > > both  
> > > > > > > > search  
> > > > > > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you have  
> > > > > > > > and  
> > > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards,  
> > > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > correct:  
> > > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15 LARGE  
> > > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > > > > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is  
> > > > > > > > 64  
> > > > > > > > bits  
> > > > > > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three  
> > > > > > > > machines  
> > > > > > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > > > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt  
> > > > > > > > whether  
> > > > > > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15 small  
> > > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > > > average.  
> > > > > > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large  
> > > > > > > > instance Vs.  
> > > > > > > > 4  
> > > > > > > > small instances?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo \<  
> > > > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use a  
> > > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > > in  
> > > > > > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > > > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and  
> > > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > > have 2  
> > > > > > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > 
> > > > > --  
> > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > Gustavo Maia
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gustavo\_Maia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gustavo_maia/32/2183_2.png) [@Gustavo\_Maia](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Gustavo_Maia)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/16 "2011-10-18T21:38:55Z")

</div>

Using the version of the master, if I set 4 shard, I guarantee that I will  
have a shard in each hd?  
Like if i have four shard, each shard of 15GB, I guarantee you'll have one  
shard of 15GB in each HD?

2011/10/18 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)

> In master version, you can specify several data locations so a single  
> instance can use several drives, I thought you were referring to that in  
> your previous mail.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, Is not it better?
> > 
> > For my experimenting with the lucene, is better distribute the load  
> > between the drives. Using an ES for each hard drive, I guarantee a better  
> > distribution between HD. Ex: One shard of 15GB per HD. During the seach i  
> > will have better parallelism since I have one HD and one processor for a  
> > specific search.
> > 
> > ex: When the User do a search we have the parallel processing of 4 hds  
> > and 4 processors, ensuring a faster response, since it was set up only one  
> > shard by ES.
> > 
> > 2011/10/18 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > 
> > > You mean start 3 ES processes on the same machine? why?
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So, I'd better install the machine (m1.xlarge) 4 ES, an ES for each  
> > > > point data to different HD. It should be better because at the time of the  
> > > > search are going to be in parallel searches using 4 hds, with different  
> > > > processors.  
> > > > I set up each instance of ES with 3GB of ram.
> > > > 
> > > > If I use the machine (m1.large) I would install only 2 ES, one for  
> > > > each allocate the same HD and 3GB of ram for each ES.
> > > > 
> > > > is it?
> > > > 
> > > > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.xlarge Config
> > > > 
> > > > 15 GB memory  
> > > > 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > > > 1,690 GB instance storage  
> > > > 64-bit platform  
> > > > I/O Performance: High  
> > > > API name: m1.xlarge
> > > > 
> > > > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.large Config:
> > > > 
> > > > 7.5 GB memory  
> > > > 4 EC2 Compute Units (2 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > > > 850 GB instance storage  
> > > > 64-bit platform  
> > > > I/O Performance: High  
> > > > API name: m1.large
> > > > 
> > > > //###################################################################
> > > > 
> > > > 2011/10/17 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > > 
> > > > > Heya,  
> > > > > Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge  
> > > > > (more  
> > > > > memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
> > > > > to outweigh faster CPU.  
> > > > > Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data  
> > > > > locations  
> > > > > does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a  
> > > > > singel shard  
> > > > > allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.  
> > > > > -shay.banon
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> > > > > > (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18 elasticsearch,  
> > > > > > which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process. Is  
> > > > > > that best ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size  
> > > > > > 15GB,  
> > > > > > thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon,  
> > > > > > > simply  
> > > > > > > because  
> > > > > > > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency  
> > > > > > > (at  
> > > > > > > least  
> > > > > > > based on what users have seen).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > > > > > > Thanks for all.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the  
> > > > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > > > instances.  
> > > > > > > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below  
> > > > > > > > > 200ms) but  
> > > > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we have  
> > > > > > > > > requirements  
> > > > > > > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances  
> > > > > > > > > handle both  
> > > > > > > > > search  
> > > > > > > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you  
> > > > > > > > > have and  
> > > > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Regards,  
> > > > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > correct:  
> > > > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15  
> > > > > > > > > LARGE  
> > > > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one large.  
> > > > > > > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large is  
> > > > > > > > > 64  
> > > > > > > > > bits  
> > > > > > > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three  
> > > > > > > > > machines  
> > > > > > > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > > > > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt  
> > > > > > > > > whether  
> > > > > > > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15  
> > > > > > > > > small  
> > > > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms on  
> > > > > > > > > average.  
> > > > > > > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large  
> > > > > > > > > instance Vs.  
> > > > > > > > > 4  
> > > > > > > > > small instances?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo \<  
> > > > > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use  
> > > > > > > > > a large  
> > > > > > > > > in  
> > > > > > > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > > > > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and  
> > > > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > > > have 2  
> > > > > > > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --  
> > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > 
> > > > --  
> > > > Gustavo Maia
> > 
> > --  
> > Gustavo Maia

--  
Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kimchy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kimchy/32/44952_2.png) [@kimchy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kimchy)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/17 "2011-10-18T22:45:24Z")

</div>

No, as I explained before, using multi drives does not mean that each shard  
will be on a single drive, it means that the files composing the Lucene  
index will exist on different drives, so a single shard will span all drives  
potentially.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)wrote:

> Using the version of the master, if I set 4 shard, I guarantee that I will  
> have a shard in each hd?  
> Like if i have four shard, each shard of 15GB, I guarantee you'll have one  
> shard of 15GB in each HD?
> 
> 2011/10/18 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> 
> > In master version, you can specify several data locations so a single  
> > instance can use several drives, I thought you were referring to that in  
> > your previous mail.
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, Is not it better?
> > > 
> > > For my experimenting with the lucene, is better distribute the load  
> > > between the drives. Using an ES for each hard drive, I guarantee a better  
> > > distribution between HD. Ex: One shard of 15GB per HD. During the seach i  
> > > will have better parallelism since I have one HD and one processor for a  
> > > specific search.
> > > 
> > > ex: When the User do a search we have the parallel processing of 4 hds  
> > > and 4 processors, ensuring a faster response, since it was set up only one  
> > > shard by ES.
> > > 
> > > 2011/10/18 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > 
> > > > You mean start 3 ES processes on the same machine? why?
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So, I'd better install the machine (m1.xlarge) 4 ES, an ES for each  
> > > > > point data to different HD. It should be better because at the time of the  
> > > > > search are going to be in parallel searches using 4 hds, with different  
> > > > > processors.  
> > > > > I set up each instance of ES with 3GB of ram.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If I use the machine (m1.large) I would install only 2 ES, one for  
> > > > > each allocate the same HD and 3GB of ram for each ES.
> > > > > 
> > > > > is it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.xlarge Config
> > > > > 
> > > > > 15 GB memory  
> > > > > 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > > > > 1,690 GB instance storage  
> > > > > 64-bit platform  
> > > > > I/O Performance: High  
> > > > > API name: m1.xlarge
> > > > > 
> > > > > \*\*\*\*\*\* m1.large Config:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 7.5 GB memory  
> > > > > 4 EC2 Compute Units (2 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)  
> > > > > 850 GB instance storage  
> > > > > 64-bit platform  
> > > > > I/O Performance: High  
> > > > > API name: m1.large
> > > > > 
> > > > > //###################################################################
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2011/10/17 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Heya,  
> > > > > > Its tricky to choose between c1.xlarge (more CPU) and m1.xlarge  
> > > > > > (more  
> > > > > > memory). I suggest going with the m1.xlarge as more memory tend  
> > > > > > to outweigh faster CPU.  
> > > > > > Regarding the drives. the new option to specify multiple data  
> > > > > > locations  
> > > > > > does not depend on the number of shards. In other words, even a  
> > > > > > singel shard  
> > > > > > allocated on a node will make use of all the data locations.  
> > > > > > -shay.banon
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm thinking of using 10 instances c1.xlarge. Each instance  
> > > > > > > (c1.xlarge) has 4 hds.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, I would use the appropriate version of the v0.18  
> > > > > > > elasticsearch,  
> > > > > > > which allows configure 4 hds in the same elasticsearch process.  
> > > > > > > Is  
> > > > > > > that best ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Would have any peformance problem, if I have each shard of size  
> > > > > > > 15GB,  
> > > > > > > thinking that in each instance would have 4 shards, one per HD?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2011/10/14 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In general, I suggest using the xlarge instances in Amazon,  
> > > > > > > > simply  
> > > > > > > > because  
> > > > > > > > of the higher IO they provide and better performance consistency  
> > > > > > > > (at  
> > > > > > > > least  
> > > > > > > > based on what users have seen).
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gustavo Maia \<  
> > > > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hi Pavel,  
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for all.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > How many large instance do you have ?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 2011/10/13 Pavel Penchev [pavel.penchev@gmail.com](mailto:pavel.penchev@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > we have similar requirements and we decided to go for the  
> > > > > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > > > > instances.  
> > > > > > > > > > The search times were ok on the small instances (90% below  
> > > > > > > > > > 200ms) but  
> > > > > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > > > > indexing suffered significantly (only 30% below 200ms, we  
> > > > > > > > > > have  
> > > > > > > > > > requirements  
> > > > > > > > > > for indexing as well). In comparison the large instances  
> > > > > > > > > > handle both  
> > > > > > > > > > search  
> > > > > > > > > > and indexing with 95% below 200ms.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Bear in mind this is specific to the type of documents you  
> > > > > > > > > > have and  
> > > > > > > > > > the  
> > > > > > > > > > searches you perform. Go for a 24h test I'd suggest.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,  
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On 13.10.2011 01:26, Gustavo Maia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > correct:  
> > > > > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 SMALL or 15  
> > > > > > > > > > LARGE  
> > > > > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms  
> > > > > > > > > > on  
> > > > > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Gustavo Maia [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com):
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > First thank you for your attention.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > In the amazon price of 4 small is the same price of one  
> > > > > > > > > > large.  
> > > > > > > > > > The small is 32 bit and have only one hard drive. The large  
> > > > > > > > > > is 64  
> > > > > > > > > > bits  
> > > > > > > > > > and have two hard drive.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Today I have 300GB of index which is distributed in three  
> > > > > > > > > > machines  
> > > > > > > > > > that each machine has 6 15k rpm hard drive.  
> > > > > > > > > > And doing this study was to migrate to the Amazon. So I doubt  
> > > > > > > > > > whether  
> > > > > > > > > > this is best 4 small or 1 large.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > My question would be to build a cluster of 40 large or 15  
> > > > > > > > > > small  
> > > > > > > > > > instance instance. I need to search back in less than 200ms  
> > > > > > > > > > on  
> > > > > > > > > > average.  
> > > > > > > > > > Is it possible to do this using elasticsearch at amazon?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for all. Elasticsearch is great project.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 2011/10/12 Shay Banon [kimchy@gmail.com](mailto:kimchy@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Large instances are preferable, but, do you mean 1 large  
> > > > > > > > > > instance Vs.  
> > > > > > > > > > 4  
> > > > > > > > > > small instances?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Gustavo \<  
> > > > > > > > > > [gustavobbmaia@gmail.com](mailto:gustavobbmaia@gmail.com)\>  
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > for better peformance is better I use 4 small instance or use  
> > > > > > > > > > a large  
> > > > > > > > > > in  
> > > > > > > > > > the amazon cloud?  
> > > > > > > > > > Small instance is 32 bits with one hard drive instance, and  
> > > > > > > > > > large  
> > > > > > > > > > have 2  
> > > > > > > > > > hard drive instance and is 64 bits.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --  
> > > > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > > > 
> > > > > --  
> > > > > Gustavo Maia
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > Gustavo Maia
> 
> --  
> Gustavo Maia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/primary-balancing/5536/18 "2017-07-06T03:51:26Z")

</div>