On 2/27/2015 12:51 PM, Tang, Rebecca wrote:
> Thank you guys for all the suggestions and help! I'Ve identified the main
> culprit with debug=timing. It was the mlt component. After I removed it,
> the speed of the query went back to reasonable. Another culprit is the
> expand component, but I ca
>> > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems
>> >
>> > perhaps going back to a very vanilla/default solr configuration and
>> building back up from that baseline to better isolate what might
>>specific
>> setting be impacting your environment
&
ack up from that baseline to better isolate what might specific
> setting be impacting your environment
> >
> > ________
> > From: Tang, Rebecca
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:44
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Su
_
> From: Tang, Rebecca
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:44
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: how to debug solr performance degradation
>
> Sorry, I should have been more specific.
>
> I was referring to the solr admin UI page. Today we started
25, 2015 11:44
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: how to debug solr performance degradation
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I was referring to the solr admin UI page. Today we started up an AWS
instance with 240 G of memory to see if we fit all of our index (183G) in
the memory
-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: how to debug solr performance degradation
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I was referring to the solr admin UI page. Today we started up an AWS
instance with 240 G of memory to see if we fit all of our index (183G) in
the memory and have enough for the JMV, cou
_
From: Shawn Heisey [apa...@elyograg.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:23 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to debug solr performance degradation
On 2/24/2015 5:45 PM, Tang, Rebecca wrote:
> We gave the machine 180G mem to see if it improves performance.
meant to type "JMX or sflow agent"
also should have mentioned you want to be running a very recent JDK
From: Boogie Shafer
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 18:03
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to debug solr performance d
ry 24, 2015 17:06
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to debug solr performance degradation
Rebecca
You don’t want to give all the memory to the JVM. You want to give it just
enough for it to work optimally and leave the rest of the memory for the OS to
use for caching data. Giving th
On 2/24/2015 5:45 PM, Tang, Rebecca wrote:
> We gave the machine 180G mem to see if it improves performance. However,
> after we increased the memory, Solr started using only 5% of the physical
> memory. It has always used 90-something%.
>
> What could be causing solr to not grab all the physical
Rebecca
You don’t want to give all the memory to the JVM. You want to give it just
enough for it to work optimally and leave the rest of the memory for the OS to
use for caching data. Giving the JVM too much memory can result in worse
performance because of GC. There is no magic formula to figu
Be careful what you think is being used by Solr since Lucene uses
MMapDirectories under the covers, and this means you might be seeing
virtual memory. See Uwe's excellent blog here:
http://blog.thetaphi.de/2012/07/use-lucenes-mmapdirectory-on-64bit.html
Best,
Erick
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:02 PM
The other memory is used by the OS as file buffers. All the important parts of
the on-disk search index are buffered in memory. When the Solr process wants a
block, it is already right there, no delays for disk access.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/
We gave the machine 180G mem to see if it improves performance. However,
after we increased the memory, Solr started using only 5% of the physical
memory. It has always used 90-something%.
What could be causing solr to not grab all the physical memory (grabbing
so little of the physical memory)?
On 2/24/2015 1:09 PM, Tang, Rebecca wrote:
> Our solr index used to perform OK on our beta production box (anywhere
> between 0-3 seconds to complete any query), but today I noticed that the
> performance is very bad (queries take between 12 – 15 seconds).
>
> I haven't updated the solr index con
Tang, Rebecca [rebecca.t...@ucsf.edu] wrote:
[12-15 second response time instead of 0-3]
> Solr index size 183G
> Documents in index 14364201
> We just have single solr box
> It has 100G memory
> 500G Harddrive
> 16 cpus
The usual culprit is memory (if you are using spinning drive as your storage)
Our solr index used to perform OK on our beta production box (anywhere between
0-3 seconds to complete any query), but today I noticed that the performance is
very bad (queries take between 12 – 15 seconds).
I haven't updated the solr index configuration (schema.xml/solrconfig.xml)
lately. All
17 matches
Mail list logo
