Ok, thanks Shawn!
That makes sense. We'll be experimenting with it.
Best,
Eric
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 10/7/2015 12:00 PM, Eric Torti wrote:
>> Can we read "high reopen rate" as "frequent soft commits"? (In our
>> case, hard commits do not open a searcher. But s
On 10/7/2015 12:00 PM, Eric Torti wrote:
> Can we read "high reopen rate" as "frequent soft commits"? (In our
> case, hard commits do not open a searcher. But soft commits do).
>
> Considering it does mean "frequent soft commits", I'd say that it
> doesn't fit our setup because we have an index rat
Correcting:
When I mentioned high non-JVM memory usage, what I probably meant was
high virtual memory allocation.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Eric Torti wrote:
> Thanks, Shawn.
>
>> After a look at the code, I found that StandardDirectoryFactory should
>> use MMap if the OS and Java version
Thanks, Shawn.
> After a look at the code, I found that StandardDirectoryFactory should
> use MMap if the OS and Java version support it. If support isn't there,
> it will use conventional file access methods. As far as I know, all
> 64-bit Java versions and 64-bit operating systems will support
On 10/7/2015 8:48 AM, Eric Torti wrote:
> class="${solr.directoryFactory:solr.StandardDirectoryFactory}"
> name="DirectoryFactory"/>
>
> I'm just starting to grasp different strategies for Directory
> implementation. Can I assume that solr.StandardDirectoryFactory is a
> MMapDirectory as described
Hello,
I'm running a 5.2.1 SolrCloud cluster and I see that one of my cores
is configured under solrconfig.xml to use
I'm just starting to grasp different strategies for Directory
implementation. Can I assume that solr.StandardDirectoryFactory is a
MMapDirectory as described by Uwe Schindler in
