Hi Shawn, Thank you for your explanation.
Yes, both of the top two processes are Solr. I have two Solr processes on one machine now, as the second one is a replica of the first one. In the future, the plan is to have them on separate machine. >Subtracting SHR from RES (or in your case, Shareable from Working) >reveals the actual memory being used, and I believe you can see this >actual number in the Private column, which is approximately the >difference between Working and Shareable. If I'm right, this means that >the actual memory usage is almost 14GB lower than Windows is reporting. Does this means that sometimes when I see the high memory usage (can be up to 100%), it is just a memory reporting error by Windows, but Solr is working exactly as it should? Regards, Edwin On 7 January 2016 at 04:42, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 1/5/2016 11:50 PM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > > Here is the new screenshot of the Memory tab of the Resource Monitor. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4bnrb66r16lpx1/Resource%20Monitor.png?dl=0 > > > > Yes, I found that the value under the "Working Set" column is much higher > > than the others. Also, the value which I was previously looking at under > > the Task Manager is under the Private Column here. > > It says that I have about 14GB of available memory, but the "Free" number > > is much lower, at 79MB. > > You'll probably think I'm nuts, but I believe everything is working > exactly as it should. > > The first two processes, which I assume are Solr processes, show a > Shareable size near 7GB each. I have seen something similar happen on > Linux where SHR memory is huge for the Solr process, and when this > happens, the combination of memory numbers would turn out to be > impossible, so I think it's a memory reporting bug related to Java, one > that affects both Linux and Windows. > > Subtracting SHR from RES (or in your case, Shareable from Working) > reveals the actual memory being used, and I believe you can see this > actual number in the Private column, which is approximately the > difference between Working and Shareable. If I'm right, this means that > the actual memory usage is almost 14GB lower than Windows is reporting. > > If both of the top processes are Solr, I'm not sure why you have two > Solr processes on one machine. One Solr instance can handle multiple > indexes with no problem. > > As evidence that I'm not insane, consider the following screenshot, from > another of my servers: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/64en3sar4cr1ytj/linux-solr-mem-high-shr.png?dl=0 > > On the screenshot, the solr process shows RES size of 22GB ... which is > highly unusual, because this Solr install has a max heap of 8GB ... but > notice that SHR is 13GB. The difference between 22GB and 13GB is 9GB, > which is much more reasonable, and if we assume that the 22GB is rounded > up and/or the 13GB is rounded down, then the difference is much closer > to 8GB. Looking at some other numbers, the "cached" value is 48GB. If > you add the 48GB cache allocation to the *reported* resident size of > 22GB for Solr, you get a total of 70GB ... which is more memory than the > machine even has (64GB). This is why I am sure that when SHR is really > high on a Java process, it is a memory reporting error. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
