<filterCache class="solr.FastLRUCache" size="20000" initialSize="4096" autowarmCount="512"/>
This is suspicious too. Each entry is up to about maxDoc/8 bytes + (string size of fq clause) long and you can have up to 20,000 of them. An autowarm count of 512 is almost never a good thing. Walter's comments about your memory are spot on of course, see: http://blog.thetaphi.de/2012/07/use-lucenes-mmapdirectory-on-64bit.html Best, Erick On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote: > 29G on a 30G machine is still a bad config. That leaves no space for the OS, > file buffers, or any other processes. > > Try with 8G. > > Also, give us some information about the number of docs, size of the indexes, > and the kinds of search features you are using. > > wunder > Walter Underwood > wun...@wunderwood.org > http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > >> On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:55 AM, shamik <sham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Apologies, 290gb was a typo on my end, it should read 29gb instead. I started >> with my 5.5 configurations of limiting the RAM to 15gb. But it started going >> down once it reached the 15gb ceiling. I tried bumping it up to 29gb since >> memory seemed to stabilize at 22gb after running for few hours, of course, >> it didn't help eventually. I did try the G1 collector. Though garbage >> collection was happening more efficiently compared to CMS, it brought the >> nodes down after a while. >> >> The part I'm trying to understand is whether the memory footprint is higher >> for 6.6 and whether I need an instance with higher ram (>30gb in my case). I >> haven't added any post 5.5 feature to rule out the possibility of a memory >> leak. >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html >
