Have you found an explanation to that? On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote:
> We have seen an increase between 4.8.1 and 4.10. > > -----Original message----- > > From:Dmitry Kan <solrexp...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday 17th February 2015 11:06 > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: unusually high 4.10.2 vs 4.3.1 RAM consumption > > > > Hi, > > > > We are currently comparing the RAM consumption of two parallel Solr > > clusters with different solr versions: 4.10.2 and 4.3.1. > > > > For comparable index sizes of a shard (20G and 26G), we observed 9G vs > 5.6G > > RAM footprint (reserved RAM as seen by top), 4.3.1 being the winner. > > > > We have not changed the solrconfig.xml to upgrade to 4.10.2 and have > > reindexed data from scratch. The commits are all controlled on the > client, > > i.e. not auto-commits. > > > > Solr: 4.10.2 (high load, mass indexing) > > Java: 1.7.0_76 (Oracle) > > -Xmx25600m > > > > > > Solr: 4.3.1 (normal load, no mass indexing) > > Java: 1.7.0_11 (Oracle) > > -Xmx25600m > > > > The RAM consumption remained the same after the load has stopped on the > > 4.10.2 cluster. Manually collecting the memory on a 4.10.2 shard via > > jvisualvm dropped the used RAM from 8,5G to 0,5G. But the reserved RAM as > > seen by top remained at 9G level. > > > > This unusual spike happened during mass data indexing. > > > > What else could be the artifact of such a difference -- Solr or JVM? Can > it > > only be explained by the mass indexing? What is worrisome is that the > > 4.10.2 shard reserves 8x times it uses. > > > > What can be done about this? > > > > -- > > Dmitry Kan > > Luke Toolbox: http://github.com/DmitryKey/luke > > Blog: http://dmitrykan.blogspot.com > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/dmitrykan > > SemanticAnalyzer: www.semanticanalyzer.info > > > -- Dmitry Kan Luke Toolbox: http://github.com/DmitryKey/luke Blog: http://dmitrykan.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/dmitrykan SemanticAnalyzer: www.semanticanalyzer.info
