Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69446200BA5 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:08:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 680C3160ADC; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id A76EF160ACC for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:08:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 98669 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2016 04:08:55 -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 98653 invoked by uid 99); 5 Oct 2016 04:08:55 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:08:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DAA5A1A0678 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:08:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.992 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.992 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FYlRdSVZkw7f for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com (mail-it0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2F9505F36D for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 188so85252172iti.1 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:08:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IdeW3+vesG0ZC5zOWMjmYyEdarYVyvNXmLcXpxmc864=; b=qHMQjflFGIZy/BWFTWUUp9vEnKbSMIDd9VLbJYGbaLw7wBHlNHYqFQMZnZXYqc+lpg SlZesxoRcbn3f9jF2cRbgNgByE6v4UopglKv/oImqrtaioIi3bHAkOKFy6JAaMMxP7Od l9pdDN188zUMmgzfQR3hTpJsre7Hl2iOU9I8N+fkRJiRGJWVndM9uRtFSO5TZSjm8rOJ WOxNvhaFRFsEFZX1B0b1jcCjf5YzQhFzVhgLWWYpCYLtcRUsfjxgNEv/fSQhOFuyZCv8 v7WDw1rJ5E9xcLurtfQAh8RWGHGrboDr+KQ4SsTFBRe1rPsW3ASz1yDmbqx3frOSUGwm UBTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=IdeW3+vesG0ZC5zOWMjmYyEdarYVyvNXmLcXpxmc864=; b=d38bwKF3uAAqpNuYkwojrcE1h11/o/4LHMj4FliEF6lMcD2GbMj3RKoQdNvTH5ei9Q rpGiz9D0CP2l7/PXBkNWYEsGf07j4sW/nk8ONZn0ETcBc3akNIY5yYSm679yzAAcQ+0V 0Y68zm0vKQYgdesshNVvfGGeeW8f3U3hCW6Hln7YXCoH77iZf668FMfJ/nR2mQ5J84xM kZEZYmfose7o7ZFsWO9BF8rcrwXBBpq5QQH4T7qJ5omAtfOCbabP4EDQoyX/Ql2at08p 8gpILlmnfnuk3LCejGP7I/3+uCB5RWAFzcYjxBApIWAWGw+o0ftt+Q7AKaOpQBZbAsRy e86A== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RncjaKSXsupVZlHMIMLLa83gV1Eq8ICw2Ht2MwxAIWazUoQsgygKPGRM9hgNXxAZdGBB7dJV+KR0zu0qw== X-Received: by 10.36.34.197 with SMTP id o188mr27551127ito.107.1475640531583; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:08:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.62.66 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:08:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1475636126922-4299645.post@n3.nabble.com> References: <1451921337206-4248413.post@n3.nabble.com> <1451923287492-4248429.post@n3.nabble.com> <1475636126922-4299645.post@n3.nabble.com> From: Erick Erickson Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:08:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Multiple solr instances on one server To: solr-user Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 archived-at: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:08:58 -0000 This is an impossibly vague question to answer. You haven't provided _anything_ useful to help answer. How much physical memory is on the machine? How man processors? What kind of searching? Faceting? Indexing rate? How many documents? What kind of documents? What evidence do you have that you _need_ to run multiple JVMs? Is this a case of premature optimization? About the only reason to worry about this is if you are encountering long stop-the-world JVM pauses. Have you any evidence of that? Unless and until you do there's not much point in running multiple JVMs. Or, I guess, if your queries are taking too long to come back even under light load. And even with all that information, the only honest answer is "try some variations and find out". Here's a straw-man proposal: Start by allocating 16G to your JVMs until you have allocated a total of around 30% of your physical memory to your JVMs. Say you have 128G, that would be 2 JVMs. Then measure/tune/measure, _then_ decide. Best, Erick On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:55 PM, shalu wrote: > We are also require multiple solr instances to divide the heap space between > cores. What is the best way to do it? > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Multiple-solr-instances-on-one-server-tp4248411p4299645.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.