Todd. These criticisms are always welcome and help us identify the weak points in Solr. Keep them coming --Thanks
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Feak, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry Yonik, I hope this didn't come off as criticism. > > Far from it. We are very happy with the performance we are getting. I > just happen to be the performance junkie trying to get every little bit > out. > > That being said, I'm happy to hear it's going to get even better! > > -Todd > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik > Seeley > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:38 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Practical number of Solr instances per machine > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Feak, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> In our load testing, the limit for utilizing all of the processor time >> on a box was locking (synchronize, mutex, monitor, pick one). There > were >> a couple of locking points that we saw. >> >> 1. Lucene's locking on the index for simultaneous read/write > protection. >> 2. Solr's locking on the LRUCaches for update protection. > > Luckily, both of these are very close to being improved: > > 1. Lucene 2.4 has NIO support (lockless) except for Windows, and > there is already a Solr patch to add support for that. > > 2. Solr already has a patch (soon to be committed) for an LRUCache > based on ConcurrentHashMap that should work better with multiple CPUs. > > -Yonik > > -- --Noble Paul
