I'd defer to the committers if they have any further advice, but you might have to suspend the autoAddReplicas trigger through the autoscaling API ( https://solr.stage.ecommerce.sandbox.directsupply-sandbox.cloud:8985/solr/ ) if you set up your collections with autoAddReplicas enabled. Then, the system will not try to re-create missing replicas.
Just another note on your setup-- It seems to me like using only 3 nodes for 168 GB worth of indices isn't making the most of SolrCloud, which provides the capabilities for sharding indices across a high number of nodes. Just a data point for you to consider when considering your cluster sizing, my org is running only about 50GB of indices, but we run it over 35 nodes with 8GB of heap apiece, each collection with 2+ shards. --Jack On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:47 AM Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Eric for the explanation. Sum of all our index size is about 138 GB, > only 2 indexes are > 19 GB, time to scale up :-). Adding new hardware will > require at least couple of days, till that time is there any option to > control the replication method? > > Thanks, > Doss. > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:12 PM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > You say you have three nodes, 130 replicas and a replication factor of 3, > > so > > you have 130 cores/node. At least one of those cores has a 20G index, > > right? > > > > What is the sum of all the indexes on a single physical machine? > > > > I think your system is under-provisioned and that you’ve been riding at > > the edge > > of instability for quite some time and have added enough more docs that > > you finally reached a tipping point. But that’s largely speculation. > > > > So adding more heap may help. But Real Soon Now you need to think about > > adding > > more hardware and moving some of your replicas to that new hardware. > > > > Again, this is speculation. But when systems are running with an > > _aggregate_ > > index size that is many multiples of the available memory (total phycisal > > memory) > > it’s a red flag. I’m guessing a bit since I don’t know the aggregate for > > all replicas… > > > > Best, > > Erick > > > > > On Sep 5, 2019, at 8:08 AM, Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > @Jorn We are adding few more zookeeper nodes soon. Thanks. > > > > > > @ Erick, sorry I couldn't understand it clearly, we have 90GB RAM per > > node, > > > out of which 14 GB assigned for HEAP, you mean to say we have to > allocate > > > more HEAP? or we need add more Physical RAM? > > > > > > This system ran for 8 to 9 months without any major issues, in recent > > times > > > only we are facing too many such incidents. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:20 PM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> If I'm reading this correctly, you have a huge amount of index in not > > much > > >> memory. You only have 14g allocated across 130 replicas, at least one > of > > >> which has a 20g index. You don't need as much memory as your aggregate > > >> index size, but this system feels severely under provisioned. I > suspect > > >> that's the root of your instability > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Erick > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 07:08 Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> We are using 3 node SOLR (7.0.1) cloud setup 1 node zookeeper > ensemble. > > >>> Each system has 16CPUs, 90GB RAM (14GB HEAP), 130 cores (3 replicas > > NRT) > > >>> with index size ranging from 700MB to 20GB. > > >>> > > >>> autoCommit - 10 minutes once > > >>> softCommit - 30 Sec Once > > >>> > > >>> At peak time if a shard goes to recovery mode many other shards also > > >> going > > >>> to recovery mode in few minutes, which creates huge load (200+ load > > >>> average) and SOLR becomes non responsive. To fix this we are > restarting > > >> the > > >>> node, again leader tries to correct the index by initiating > > replication, > > >>> which causes load again, and the node goes to non responsive state. > > >>> > > >>> As soon as a node starts the replication process initiated for all > 130 > > >>> cores, is there any we control it, like one after the other? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Doss. > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
