[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13033073#comment-13033073
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-3090:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
bq. Could we add an assert that net flushPending + active RAM never exceeds
some multiplier (2X?) of the configured max RAM?
net flush pending means? we only differ between flushing ram and active ram so
flushing ram can easily get above such a limit if IO is slow...
{quote}
But shouldn't stallControl kick in in that case? Ie, we stall all indexing if
the number of flush-pending DWPTs is >= the number of active DWPTs, I think?
> DWFlushControl does not take active DWPT out of the loop on fullFlush
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3090
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
> Assignee: Simon Willnauer
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3090.patch, LUCENE-3090.patch
>
>
> We have seen several OOM on TestNRTThreads and all of them are caused by
> DWFlushControl missing DWPT that are set as flushPending but can't full due
> to a full flush going on. Yet that means that those DWPT are filling up in
> the background while they should actually be checked out and blocked until
> the full flush finishes. Even further we currently stall on the
> maxNumThreadStates while we should stall on the num of active thread states.
> I will attach a patch tomorrow.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
