On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 02:43 +0200, Bictor Man wrote:
> thanks for your replies. indeed the filesystem caching seems to be the
> difference. sadly I can't add more memory and the 6GB/20core combination
> doesn't work. so I'll just try to tweak it as much as I can.
A (better) alternative to more mem
Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>From: François Schiettecatte
>To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 12:43 PM
>Subject: Re: drastic performance decrease with 20 cores
>
>You have n
Hi guys,
thanks for your replies. indeed the filesystem caching seems to be the
difference. sadly I can't add more memory and the 6GB/20core combination
doesn't work. so I'll just try to tweak it as much as I can.
thanks a lot.
2011/9/26 François Schiettecatte
> You have not said how big your
You have not said how big your index is but I suspect that allocating 13GB for
your 20 cores is starving the OS of memory for caching file data. Have you
tried 6GB with 20 cores? I suspect you will see the same performance as 6GB &
10 cores.
Generally it is better to allocate just enough memory
On 9/26/2011 9:33 AM, Bictor Man wrote:
Hi everyone,
Sorry if this issue has been discussed before, but I'm new to the list.
I have a solr (3.4) instance running with 20 cores (around 4 million docs
each).
The instance has allocated 13GB in a 16GB RAM server. If I run several sets
of queries se
Hi everyone,
Sorry if this issue has been discussed before, but I'm new to the list.
I have a solr (3.4) instance running with 20 cores (around 4 million docs
each).
The instance has allocated 13GB in a 16GB RAM server. If I run several sets
of queries sequentially in each of the cores, the I/O a
Hi everyone,
Sorry if this issue has been discussed before, but I'm new to the list.
I have a solr (3.4) instance running with 20 cores (around 4 million docs
each).
The instance has allocated 13GB in a 16GB RAM server. If I run several sets
of queries sequentially in each of the cores, the I/O a
