Be a bit careful here. 128G is lots of memory, you may encounter very long
garbage collection pauses. Just be aware that this may be happening later.
Best,
Erick
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Tom Mortimer wrote:
> Just tried it with no other changes than upping the RAM to 128GB total, and
>
Just tried it with no other changes than upping the RAM to 128GB total, and
it's flying. I think that proves that RAM is good. =) Will implement
suggested changes later, though.
cheers,
Tom
On 22 October 2013 09:04, Tom Mortimer wrote:
> Boogie, Shawn,
>
> Thanks for the replies. I'm going to
Boogie, Shawn,
Thanks for the replies. I'm going to try out some of your suggestions
today. Although, without more RAM I'm not that optimistic..
Tom
On 21 October 2013 18:40, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 9:48 AM, Tom Mortimer wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've been working on an inst
On 10/21/2013 9:48 AM, Tom Mortimer wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've been working on an installation recently which uses SolrCloud to index
45M documents into 8 shards on 2 VMs running 64-bit Ubuntu (with another 2
identical VMs set up for replicas). The reason we're using so many shards
for a relativel
some sort of
MPIO in place (esp if you are using 1GB iscsi)
From: Tom Mortimer
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 08:48
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: SolrCloud performance in VM environment
Hi everyone,
I've been working on an install
Hi everyone,
I've been working on an installation recently which uses SolrCloud to index
45M documents into 8 shards on 2 VMs running 64-bit Ubuntu (with another 2
identical VMs set up for replicas). The reason we're using so many shards
for a relatively small index is that there are complex filte
