Try mergeFactor of 10 (default) which should be fine in most cases. If you got 
an extreme case, either create more shards and consider better hardware (SSD's)
 
-----Original message-----
> From:Antonio De Miguel <deveto...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday 5th July 2017 16:48
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: High disk write usage
> 
> Thnaks a lot alessandro!
> 
> Yes, we have very big physical dedicated machines, with a topology of 5
> shards and10 replicas each shard.
> 
> 
> 1. transaction log files are increasing but not with this rate
> 
> 2.  we 've probed with values between 300 and 2000 MB... without any
> visible results
> 
> 3.  We don't use those features
> 
> 4. No.
> 
> 5. I've probed with low and high mergefacors and i think that is  the point.
> 
> With low merge factor (over 4) we 've high write disk rate as i said
> previously
> 
> with merge factor of 20, writing disk rate is decreasing, but now, with
> high qps rates (over 1000 qps) system is overloaded.
> 
> i think that's the expected behaviour :(
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-07-05 15:49 GMT+02:00 alessandro.benedetti <a.benede...@sease.io>:
> 
> > Point 2 was the ram Buffer size :
> >
> > *ramBufferSizeMB* sets the amount of RAM that may be used by Lucene
> >          indexing for buffering added documents and deletions before they
> > are
> >          flushed to the Directory.
> >          maxBufferedDocs sets a limit on the number of documents buffered
> >          before flushing.
> >          If both ramBufferSizeMB and maxBufferedDocs is set, then
> >          Lucene will flush based on whichever limit is hit first.
> >
> > <ramBufferSizeMB>100</ramBufferSizeMB>
> > <maxBufferedDocs>1000</maxBufferedDocs>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > ---------------
> > Alessandro Benedetti
> > Search Consultant, R&D Software Engineer, Director
> > Sease Ltd. - www.sease.io
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
> > nabble.com/High-disk-write-usage-tp4344356p4344386.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> 

Reply via email to