Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 505D417D21 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 06:27:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71318 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2016 06:27:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71238 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2016 06:27:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71217 invoked by uid 99); 3 Mar 2016 06:27:41 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 06:27:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6AD53C03D4 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 06:27:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.448 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.448 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx2-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DnT4EyQ78FBU for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 06:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by mx2-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 4BE105FE5C for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 06:27:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l127so17493438iof.3 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:27:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rtgDoWBDS2gDbzgnHGVDN4mh9BVlVmGw/ICpnWKwJ08=; b=Mejke7GRn862OYvkFIVOccxnM0YBNe0hMi26QvllFAir8e0nmxItzyTeWNqVPZcOj0 6MPbu6MFntl4Ay3eh+oJBV3FusrmR14dpx62Ps7OUCKhvu6j+WuSTngqqOx3my7boHYB Xx66DYgZoeIKqM5gToYUrZcWTNQ1i3KcW7wigRlbuDJYx4zfd2mq6o/g1z/lQ/NcQZlS p7QvAntMjwtoFfW6qc0xKHIXChqDZi4z6Qa2qLuVmrXd8w6L0v2GmRipHPSzmnFhZhqL YtDOXn1qu5xxtR1jYfBdSgA/N4/NzfMGlvgzqSxKhWq+e4OcSdxeu9HCr7/tnUMlAc/T WK2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=rtgDoWBDS2gDbzgnHGVDN4mh9BVlVmGw/ICpnWKwJ08=; b=U+srKayVhYsJ457fFaq6AslRDcPbbeNyW72dtPGvcSwqOVlxWWmfGCHWN53srIocx2 jtHYwL9stgMbes9mfIyVJAcHuz15n79oA+ivzKjYiZPdxGU8FfvzQ7Lm+e9MvUc/WR8b ysVWL1JdfJgN2dOhO1gEXQxiqOz2rhSv6+JrA6VEnZtvKA3SmjfnJFCP9en8uud6jdmq dAvH/gw88KhghfD37NiRDDtvYPqDMPNsYMK+IXpF2+h0cPhFdFJp/MDvVyuIqqXZBbHg cOtKTRYi9oroIjfb/z7iHk938xfj9097RYSUYRuczDfylsAWS0g0N1b3OIIIu+FwxlwN DJQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKo0gPtTLbQnzYNFjNGPshWls56TifyKlcw/Q6qDlgVrltVuD+tMLMSxQctd5ptX9kzshX2uDA8kZedOg== X-Received: by 10.107.14.66 with SMTP id 63mr1385444ioo.150.1456986458210; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:27:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <027C1B99733BA64792B363A464CFBA46A0939E24@indiaserv04> In-Reply-To: <027C1B99733BA64792B363A464CFBA46A0939E24@indiaserv04> From: Binoy Dalal Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 06:27:28 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Solr Configuration (Caching & RAM) for performance Tuning To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fe1be48e749052d1f18fd --001a113fe1be48e749052d1f18fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 1) Experiment with the autowarming settings in solrconfig.xml. Since in your case, you're indexing so frequently consider setting the count to a low number, so that not a lot of time is spent warming the caches. Alternatively if you're not very big on initial query response times being small, you could turn off auto warming all together. Also how are your commit settings configured? Do you do a hard commit every 10 seconds or do you have soft committing enabled? 2) 50Gb memory is way to high to assign to just solr and it is unnecessary. Solr loads your index into the OS cache. The index is not held in the JVM heap. So it is essential that your OS have enough free memory available to load the entire index. Since you're only seeing about a 2gb use of your JVM memory, set your heap size to something around 4gbs. Also, how big is your index? On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, 11:39 Maulin Rathod, wrote: > Hi, > > We are using Solr 5.2 (on windows 2012 server/jdk 1.8) for document > content indexing/querying. We found that querying slows down intermittently > under load condition. > > In our analysis we found two issues. > > 1) Solr is not effectively using caching. > > Whenever new document indexed, it opens new searcher and hence cache will > become invalid (as cache was associated with old Index Searcher). In our > scenario, new documents are indexed very frequently (at least 10 document > are indexed per minute). So effectively cache will not be useful as it will > open new searcher frequently to make new documents available for searching. > How can improve caching usage? > > > 2) RAM is not utilized > > We observed that Solr is using only 1-2 GB of heap even though we have > assign 50 GB. Seems like it is not loading index into RAM which leads to > high IO. Is it possible to configure Solr to fully load indexes in memory? > Don't find any documentation about this. How can we increase RAM usage to > improve Solr performance? > > > Regards, > > Maulin > > [CC Award Winners 2015] > > -- Regards, Binoy Dalal --001a113fe1be48e749052d1f18fd--