The optimize should, indeed, reduce the index size. Be aware that it may consume 2x the disk space. You may also try expungedeletes, see here: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateXmlMessages
Best, Erick On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Vinay Pothnis <poth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another update: > > I removed the replicas - to avoid the replication doing a full copy. I am > able delete sizeable chunks of data. > But the overall index size remains the same even after the deletes. It does > not seem to go down. > > I understand that Solr would do this in background - but I don't seem to > see the decrease in overall index size even after 1-2 hours. > I can see a bunch of ".del" files in the index directory, but the it does > not seem to get cleaned up. Is there anyway to monitor/follow the progress > of index compaction? > > Also, does triggering "optimize" from the admin UI help to compact the > index size on disk? > > Thanks > Vinay > > > On 14 April 2014 12:19, Vinay Pothnis <poth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Some update: >> >> I removed the auto warm configurations for the various caches and reduced >> the cache sizes. I then issued a call to delete a day's worth of data (800K >> documents). >> >> There was no out of memory this time - but some of the nodes went into >> recovery mode. Was able to catch some logs this time around and this is >> what i see: >> >> **************** >> *WARN [2014-04-14 18:11:00.381] [org.apache.solr.update.PeerSync] >> PeerSync: core=core1_shard1_replica2 url=http://host1:8983/solr >> <http://host1:8983/solr> too many updates received since start - >> startingUpdates no longer overlaps with our currentUpdates* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:00.476] [org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy] >> PeerSync Recovery was not successful - trying replication. >> core=core1_shard1_replica2* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:00.476] [org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy] >> Starting Replication Recovery. core=core1_shard1_replica2* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:00.535] [org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy] >> Begin buffering updates. core=core1_shard1_replica2* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:00.536] [org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy] >> Attempting to replicate from http://host2:8983/solr/core1_shard1_replica1/ >> <http://host2:8983/solr/core1_shard1_replica1/>. core=core1_shard1_replica2* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:00.536] >> [org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.HttpClientUtil] Creating new http >> client, >> config:maxConnections=128&maxConnectionsPerHost=32&followRedirects=false* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:01.964] >> [org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.HttpClientUtil] Creating new http >> client, >> config:connTimeout=5000&socketTimeout=20000&allowCompression=false&maxConnections=10000&maxConnectionsPerHost=10000* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:01.969] [org.apache.solr.handler.SnapPuller] No >> value set for 'pollInterval'. Timer Task not started.* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:01.973] [org.apache.solr.handler.SnapPuller] >> Master's generation: 1108645* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:01.973] [org.apache.solr.handler.SnapPuller] >> Slave's generation: 1108627* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:01.973] [org.apache.solr.handler.SnapPuller] >> Starting replication process* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:02.007] [org.apache.solr.handler.SnapPuller] >> Number of files in latest index in master: 814* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:02.007] >> [org.apache.solr.core.CachingDirectoryFactory] return new directory for >> /opt/data/solr/core1_shard1_replica2/data/index.20140414181102007* >> *INFO [2014-04-14 18:11:02.008] [org.apache.solr.handler.SnapPuller] >> Starting download to >> NRTCachingDirectory(org.apache.lucene.store.MMapDirectory@/opt/data/solr/core1_shard1_replica2/data/index.20140414181102007 >> lockFactory=org.apache.lucene.store.NativeFSLockFactory@5f6570fe; >> maxCacheMB=48.0 maxMergeSizeMB=4.0) fullCopy=true* >> >> **************** >> >> >> So, it looks like the number of updates is too huge for the regular >> replication and then it goes into full copy of index. And since our index >> size is very huge (350G), this is causing the cluster to go into recovery >> mode forever - trying to copy that huge index. >> >> I also read in some thread >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Recovery-too-many-updates-received-since-start-td3935281.htmlthat >> there is a limit of 100 documents. >> >> I wonder if this has been updated to make that configurable since that >> thread. If not, the only option I see is to do a "trickle" delete of 100 >> documents per second or something. >> >> Also - the other suggestion of using "distributed=false" might not help >> because the issue currently is that the replication is going to "full copy". >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Thanks >> Vinay >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 14 April 2014 07:54, Vinay Pothnis <poth...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes, that is our approach. We did try deleting a day's worth of data at a >>> time, and that resulted in OOM as well. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Vinay >>> >>> >>> On 14 April 2014 00:27, Furkan KAMACI <furkankam...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi; >>>> >>>> I mean you can divide the range (i.e. one week at each delete instead of >>>> one month) and try to check whether you still get an OOM or not. >>>> >>>> Thanks; >>>> Furkan KAMACI >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-14 7:09 GMT+03:00 Vinay Pothnis <poth...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> > Aman, >>>> > Yes - Will do! >>>> > >>>> > Furkan, >>>> > How do you mean by 'bulk delete'? >>>> > >>>> > -Thanks >>>> > Vinay >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 12 April 2014 14:49, Furkan KAMACI <furkankam...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Hi; >>>> > > >>>> > > Do you get any problems when you index your data? On the other hand >>>> > > deleting as bulks and reducing the size of documents may help you >>>> not to >>>> > > hit OOM. >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks; >>>> > > Furkan KAMACI >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > 2014-04-12 8:22 GMT+03:00 Aman Tandon <amantandon...@gmail.com>: >>>> > > >>>> > > > Vinay please share your experience after trying this solution. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Vinay Pothnis <poth...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > The query is something like this: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > *curl -H 'Content-Type: text/xml' --data >>>> '<delete><query>param1:(val1 >>>> > > OR >>>> > > > > val2) AND -param2:(val3 OR val4) AND date_param:[1383955200000 TO >>>> > > > > 1385164800000]</query></delete>' >>>> > > > > 'http://host:port/solr/coll-name1/update?commit=true'* >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Trying to restrict the number of documents deleted via the date >>>> > > > parameter. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Had not tried the "distrib=false" option. I could give that a >>>> try. >>>> > > Thanks >>>> > > > > for the link! I will check on the cache sizes and autowarm >>>> values. >>>> > Will >>>> > > > try >>>> > > > > and disable the caches when I am deleting and give that a try. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Thanks Erick and Shawn for your inputs! >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > -Vinay >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > On 11 April 2014 15:28, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > On 4/10/2014 7:25 PM, Vinay Pothnis wrote: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >> When we tried to delete the data through a query - say 1 >>>> > day/month's >>>> > > > > worth >>>> > > > > >> of data. But after deleting just 1 month's worth of data, the >>>> > master >>>> > > > > node >>>> > > > > >> is going out of memory - heap space. >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> Wondering is there any way to incrementally delete the data >>>> > without >>>> > > > > >> affecting the cluster adversely. >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I'm curious about the actual query being used here. Can you >>>> share >>>> > > it, >>>> > > > or >>>> > > > > > a redacted version of it? Perhaps there might be a clue there? >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Is this a fully distributed delete request? One thing you >>>> might >>>> > try, >>>> > > > > > assuming Solr even supports it, is sending the same delete >>>> request >>>> > > > > directly >>>> > > > > > to each shard core with distrib=false. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Here's a very incomplete list about how you can reduce Solr >>>> heap >>>> > > > > > requirements: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems# >>>> > > > > > Reducing_heap_requirements >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Thanks, >>>> > > > > > Shawn >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > -- >>>> > > > With Regards >>>> > > > Aman Tandon >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>
