Yonik,
there is another "synchronized" block in CSInputStream which could block your second cpu out. Do you think there is a chance to recreate the index (maybe a smaller subset) without compound file option enabled and run your test again, so that we can see if this helps ?
regards Bernhard
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Ah, you may be right (no stack trace in email any more). Somebody
recenly identified a few bottlenecks that, if I recall correctly, were
related to synchronized blocks. I believe Doug committed some
improvements, but I can't remember which version of Lucene that is in. It's definitely in 1.4.1.
Otis
--- Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The bottleneck seems to be disk IO.
But it's not. Linux is caching the whole file, and there really isn't any disk activity at all. Most of the threads are blocked on InputStream.refill, not waiting for the disk, but waiting for their turn into the synchronized block to read from the disk (which is why I asked about cacheing above that level).
CPU is a constant 50% on a dual CPU system (meaning 100% of 1 cpu).
-Yonik
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
