<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: indexer sizing and virtualization in Getting Data In</title>
    <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68127#M13792</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;You might want to check out this link &lt;A href="http://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/4.2.3/Installation/CapacityplanningforalargerSplunkdeployment"&gt;http://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/4.2.3/Installation/CapacityplanningforalargerSplunkdeployment&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The real question is, how much data are you indexing and how many users do you have? I would probably just set up the "big" boxes up as dedicated indexers and the lesser box as a dedicated search head. The biggest consideration is Disk I/O performance. If you have a lot of users, it might make more sense to make one of the big boxes a dedicated search head instead to accommodate more concurrent searches.  &lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:38:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>RicoSuave</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-09-01T12:38:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>indexer sizing and virtualization</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68126#M13791</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi - &lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I'm embarking on a re-organization in my splunk environment. I've come into possession of a couple big x86 boxes (4 socket, 8 core, 256GB RAM), and given that I heard multiple times that indexing is better distributed horizontally across smaller boxes, it leads me to wonder this: If I replace two of my 3 indexers with these boxes, can splunk take advantageof the hardware? Or am I better off partitioning these boxes via virtualization into a number of smaller boxes (but still using local disk resources, etc.)?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;
Steve&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:27:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68126#M13791</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steve_Litras</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-08-31T19:27:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: indexer sizing and virtualization</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68127#M13792</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You might want to check out this link &lt;A href="http://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/4.2.3/Installation/CapacityplanningforalargerSplunkdeployment"&gt;http://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/4.2.3/Installation/CapacityplanningforalargerSplunkdeployment&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The real question is, how much data are you indexing and how many users do you have? I would probably just set up the "big" boxes up as dedicated indexers and the lesser box as a dedicated search head. The biggest consideration is Disk I/O performance. If you have a lot of users, it might make more sense to make one of the big boxes a dedicated search head instead to accommodate more concurrent searches.  &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:38:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68127#M13792</guid>
      <dc:creator>RicoSuave</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-09-01T12:38:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: indexer sizing and virtualization</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68128#M13793</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Splunk can definitely use all the resources of the box.  It is high-performance multi-threaded code,  I would &lt;EM&gt;not&lt;/EM&gt; virtualize the box; this will not help Splunk use it better.  The overhead of virtualization will &lt;EM&gt;not&lt;/EM&gt; be offset by any performance improvements.  (I am a VMware-certified VCP4, if that helps my credibility on this one.)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Think of the Splunk advice as "Spend your money on lots of average-sized servers, rather than a few giant servers."  Why?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;average-sized "commodity" servers are relatively cheap.  When you start buying "extra large" memory, etc., it tends to come at a premium price.  So "commodity" servers are the most effective way to spend the money.  (But your servers were free!)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;more boxes gives you more concurrent IO - for Splunk indexers, IO is usually the bottleneck&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Splunk is designed to be distributed; adding more indexers increases search performance nearly linearly&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Lucky you - I wish someone would give me some physical servers (that weren't ready for the junk heap)!  I would probably make them all indexers, unless my search head was overloaded.  Adding indexers = reduced search time = more searches per minute = can serve more users effectively.  &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 17:33:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Getting-Data-In/indexer-sizing-and-virtualization/m-p/68128#M13793</guid>
      <dc:creator>lguinn2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-09-03T17:33:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

