Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFGv-Eumo35cszyz1jyXqeNdFc6BBM4yz1bqaMkYYiBhOJx1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKFGv-Eumo35cszyz1jyXqeNdFc6BBM4yz1bqaMkYYiBhOJx1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:46:45 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CANNBgPL7FDH9+fXm7BfuRvrwXu4s7=4J36TSu6-GOY_+Ct5pBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 43sec commit duration - blocked by index merge events?
From: Otis Gospodnetic <otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com>
To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c11caeadb541050ee88afb

--001a11c11caeadb541050ee88afb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

If you are using Solr and SPM for Solr, you can check a report that shows
the # of files in an index and the report that shows you the max docs-num
docs delta.  If you see the # of files drop during a commit, that's a
merge.  If you see a big delta change, that's probably a merge, too.

You could also jstack or kill -3 the JVM and see where it's spending its
time to give you some ideas what's going on inside.

HTH.

Otis
--
Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management
Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/


On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Gili Nachum <gilinachum@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> During a load test I noticed a commit that took 43 seconds to complete
> (client hard complete).
> Is this to be expected? What's causing it?
> I have a pair of machines hosting a 128M docs collection (8 shards,
> replication factor=2).
>
> Could it be merges? In Lucene merges happen async of commit statements, but
> reading Solr's doc for Update Hanlder
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/UpdateHandlers+in+SolrConfig
> >
> it sounds like hard commits do wait for merges to occur: *" The tradeoff is
> that a soft commit gives you faster visibility because it's not waiting for
> background merges to finish."*
> Thanks.
>

--001a11c11caeadb541050ee88afb--