Actually we don't have much load on the server (like the usage currently is
quite low) but user queries are very complex e.g. long phrases/multiple
proximity/wildcard etc so I know these values need to be tried out but I
wanted to see whats the right 'start' so that I am not way off.

Also regarding Solr cores just to clarify they are totally different indexes
(not 2 parts of one index) so the queries on them are separate do you still
think its better to keep them on two cores?

Thanks a lot!

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote:

> You're better off using two cores on the same Solr instance rather than two
> instances of Tomcat, that way you avoid some overhead.
>
> The usual advice is to monitor the Solr caches, particularly for evictions
> and
> size the Solr caches accordingly. You can see these from the admin/stats
> page
> and also by mining the logs, looking particularly for cache evictions.
> Since
> cache
> usage is so dependent on the particular installation and usage pattern
> (particularly
> sorting and faceting), "general" advice is hard to give.
>
> Hope this helps
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > In case it helps there are two SOLR indexes (160GB and 700GB) on the
> > machine.
> >
> > Also these are separate indexes and not shards so would it help to put
> them
> > on two separate Tomcat servers on same machine? This way I think one
> index
> > won't be affecting others cache.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Salman Akram <
> > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I know this is a subjective topic but from what I have read it seems
> more
> > > RAM should be spared for OS caching and much less for SOLR/Tomcat even
> on
> > a
> > > dedicated SOLR server.
> > >
> > > Can someone give me an idea about the theoretically ideal proportion
> b/w
> > > them for a dedicated Windows server with 32GB RAM? Also the index is
> > updated
> > > every hour.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Salman Akram
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Salman Akram
> >
>



-- 
Regards,

Salman Akram

Reply via email to