Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23E7AD57E for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:42:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 41059 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2012 15:42:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 41001 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2012 15:42:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 40983 invoked by uid 99); 9 Nov 2012 15:42:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:42:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [98.138.90.59] (HELO nm27-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.90.59) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:42:11 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.54] by nm27.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Nov 2012 15:41:50 -0000 Received: from [98.138.87.12] by tm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Nov 2012 15:41:49 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Nov 2012 15:41:49 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 897351.28636.bm@omp1012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 81413 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Nov 2012 15:41:49 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1352475709; bh=XVT/2vet5fDAJT/a6nwFSDIsIdcJQ0AwxM3sPPIu+go=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DxR15dm40K198hEyyVExAJjCRVnnGk4wop2LRM/pc4EqOTT+qWsHhjAj02xkfnbomCT5//npwvMSmoWjo4NwbazJi9xvOedOZ1LHgUeS1jOazMs1K6rl8E3bscVez13Cv57OeQgoYElVK6zONTVLnrf2msyJBoyUpeJQHVlF6bc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Xfm+CJ8kaxhl9vF8LL5Niny5kxwA6BkZF7IXpAQ4aFoIWnIbemLZTCln5bWTvHlKmlmqms2krbVFrUQTLpJRn00G2sS1SX4iktGDWOQF2Iz7yMCdisoJ5h3RIcT8F3mN6XrcNggJLi5pOn5eTWb2WZgHFNZav3bNdscAh94+ZTs=; X-YMail-OSG: XWabsecVM1nYJiIa_46u5w2L2j9qVZ3f2fVmZCipF9hbXrx qeWdMhRLt Received: from [146.101.57.209] by web120704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:41:49 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001,SGkgSWFuLApZZXMgSS9PIC0.Q1BVLCBidXQgcmVhZCBvbi4uLgoKVGhlIHRocm91Z2hwdXQgaXMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgd2l0aCBzaW1pbGFyIGkvbyBhbmQgMjAlIGhpZ2hlciBDUFUuIFdlIGhhdmUgcGxlbnR5IG9mIENQVSBhbmQgSSB3b3VsZCByYXRoZXIgYmUgY3B1IGJvdW5kLCB0aGVhbiBpL28gYm91bmQuCgoKSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgaGF2ZSBpbmNyZWFzZWQgdGhlIG51bWJlciBvZiBpbmRleGluZyB0aHJlYWRzIGluIG91ciBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi4gT24gTHVjZW5lIDIuMy4yLCB0aGlzIGdhdmUgbm8BMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.123.460 References: <1352285913.38911.YahooMailNeo@web120703.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1352378424.28023.YahooMailNeo@web120703.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1352475709.80385.YahooMailNeo@web120704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:41:49 -0800 (PST) From: kiwi clive Reply-To: kiwi clive Subject: Re: Lucene 3.6.0 high CPU usage To: "java-user@lucene.apache.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1167350687-1285890873-1352475709=:80385" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --1167350687-1285890873-1352475709=:80385 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ian,=0AYes I/O ->CPU, but read on...=0A=0AThe throughput is about the sa= me with similar i/o and 20% higher CPU. We have plenty of CPU and I would r= ather be cpu bound, thean i/o bound.=0A=0A=0AHowever, we have increased the= number of indexing threads in our application. On Lucene 2.3.2, this gave = no performance improvement as the I/O just increased. However,=A0 lucene 3.= 6.0 ramps up the CPU (user) usage while I/O only increases marginally. =0A= =0A=0AOur throughput has trebled !! - amazing improvement, and all in CPU s= pace.=0A=0A=0ASo it appears there have been a lot of performance improvemen= ts made in the new version that I was not previously using, the Ferrari was= in first gear and now we are taking advantage of these features.=0A=0AThis= is truly phenominal step-change in throughput, thank you Lucene developers= !=0A=0AClive=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Ian Lea = =0ATo: java-user@lucene.apache.org; kiwi clive =0ASent: Friday, November 9, 2012 10:04 AM=0ASubject: Re: Luc= ene 3.6.0 high CPU usage=0A =0AAre you getting the same, improved or worse = performance/throughput?=0AHas the bottleneck switched from IO to CPU?=0A=0A= =0A--=0AIan.=0A=0A=0AOn Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:40 PM, kiwi clive wrote:=0A> Having played with merge parameters and various ind= ex parameters, it seems possible to change the I/O usage at the cost of the= number of index files. However, it does appear that this version of lucene= is using more CPU.=A0 Is there any reason for this ? is it normal ? We can= push a large amount of documents through the indexer and it seams to work = admirably although I would be happier if the load average came down.=0A>=0A= > Any lucene devs out there who could shed some light on this behaviour ?= =0A>=0A>=0A> Thanks,=0A> Clive=0A>=0A>=0A> ________________________________= =0A>=A0 From: kiwi clive =0A> To: "java-user@lucene.a= pache.org" =0A> Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2= 012 10:58 AM=0A> Subject: Lucene 3.6.0 high CPU usage=0A>=0A> Hi Guys,=0A>= =0A> Having upgraded from lucene2.3.2 to lucene3.6.0 and jumping through a = few hoops, we note that the CPU usage on the new version is perhaps 20-30% = higher. The i/o wait appears about the same on both versions.=0A>=0A> Can a= nyone suggest why this should be so or is the newer lucene version just mor= e CPU hungry? If not, any tuning suggestions to reduce CPU usage would be g= ratefully received !=0A>=0A> Thanks=0A> Clive=0A=0A------------------------= ---------------------------------------------=0ATo unsubscribe, e-mail: jav= a-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org=0AFor additional commands, e-mail: jav= a-user-help@lucene.apache.org --1167350687-1285890873-1352475709=:80385--