I set the autowarm to 2000, which only takes about two minutes and resolves
my issues.
Thanks for your help!
best,
cloude
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> It looks like the cache is configured big enough, but the autowarm count is
> too big to have good performance.
>
>
It looks like the cache is configured big enough, but the autowarm
count is too big to have good performance.
Try something smaller and see if that fixes both problems. I imagine
even just warming the most recent 100 queries would precache the most
important ones, but try some higher numbe
- Original Message
> From: Cloude Porteus
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:48:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Snapinstaller + Overlapping onDeckSearchers Problems
>
> Yes, I guess I'm running 40k queries when it starts :) I didn't know that
Yes, I guess I'm running 40k queries when it starts :) I didn't know that
each count was equal to a query. I thought it was just copying the cache
entries from the previous searcher, but I guess that wouldn't include new
entries. I set it to the size of our filterCache. What should I set the the
au
I don't understand why this sometimes takes two minutes between the
start
commit & /update and sometimes takes 20 minutes? One of our caches
has about
~40,000 items, but I can't imagine it taking 20 minutes to autowarm a
searcher.
What do your cache configs look like?
How big is the auto
> Subject: Snapinstaller + Overlapping onDeckSearchers Problems
>
> We have been running our solr slaves without autowarming our new searchers
> for a long time, but that was causing us 50-75 requests in 20+ seconds
> timeframe after every update on the slaves. I have turned on autowarming
We have been running our solr slaves without autowarming our new searchers
for a long time, but that was causing us 50-75 requests in 20+ seconds
timeframe after every update on the slaves. I have turned on autowarming and
that has fixed our slow response times, but I'm running into occasional
Over
