Dear Jack, Thanks for your input. Non of our cores were created with autoAddReplicas. The problem we are facing is, upon rebooting leader tries to sync the data with other nodes which are part of the cluster.
Thanks, Doss. On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:46 PM Jack Schlederer <schleder...@gmail.com> wrote: > My mistake on the link, which should be this: > > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_1/solrcloud-autoscaling-auto-add-replicas.html#implementation-using-autoaddreplicas-trigger > > --Jack > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:02 AM Jack Schlederer <schleder...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'd defer to the committers if they have any further advice, but you > might > > have to suspend the autoAddReplicas trigger through the autoscaling API ( > > > https://solr.stage.ecommerce.sandbox.directsupply-sandbox.cloud:8985/solr/ > ) > > if you set up your collections with autoAddReplicas enabled. Then, the > > system will not try to re-create missing replicas. > > > > Just another note on your setup-- It seems to me like using only 3 nodes > > for 168 GB worth of indices isn't making the most of SolrCloud, which > > provides the capabilities for sharding indices across a high number of > > nodes. Just a data point for you to consider when considering your > cluster > > sizing, my org is running only about 50GB of indices, but we run it over > 35 > > nodes with 8GB of heap apiece, each collection with 2+ shards. > > > > --Jack > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:47 AM Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Thanks Eric for the explanation. Sum of all our index size is about 138 > >> GB, > >> only 2 indexes are > 19 GB, time to scale up :-). Adding new hardware > will > >> require at least couple of days, till that time is there any option to > >> control the replication method? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Doss. > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:12 PM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > You say you have three nodes, 130 replicas and a replication factor of > >> 3, > >> > so > >> > you have 130 cores/node. At least one of those cores has a 20G index, > >> > right? > >> > > >> > What is the sum of all the indexes on a single physical machine? > >> > > >> > I think your system is under-provisioned and that you’ve been riding > at > >> > the edge > >> > of instability for quite some time and have added enough more docs > that > >> > you finally reached a tipping point. But that’s largely speculation. > >> > > >> > So adding more heap may help. But Real Soon Now you need to think > about > >> > adding > >> > more hardware and moving some of your replicas to that new hardware. > >> > > >> > Again, this is speculation. But when systems are running with an > >> > _aggregate_ > >> > index size that is many multiples of the available memory (total > >> phycisal > >> > memory) > >> > it’s a red flag. I’m guessing a bit since I don’t know the aggregate > for > >> > all replicas… > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > Erick > >> > > >> > > On Sep 5, 2019, at 8:08 AM, Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > @Jorn We are adding few more zookeeper nodes soon. Thanks. > >> > > > >> > > @ Erick, sorry I couldn't understand it clearly, we have 90GB RAM > per > >> > node, > >> > > out of which 14 GB assigned for HEAP, you mean to say we have to > >> allocate > >> > > more HEAP? or we need add more Physical RAM? > >> > > > >> > > This system ran for 8 to 9 months without any major issues, in > recent > >> > times > >> > > only we are facing too many such incidents. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:20 PM Erick Erickson < > >> erickerick...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> If I'm reading this correctly, you have a huge amount of index in > not > >> > much > >> > >> memory. You only have 14g allocated across 130 replicas, at least > >> one of > >> > >> which has a 20g index. You don't need as much memory as your > >> aggregate > >> > >> index size, but this system feels severely under provisioned. I > >> suspect > >> > >> that's the root of your instability > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Erick > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 07:08 Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We are using 3 node SOLR (7.0.1) cloud setup 1 node zookeeper > >> ensemble. > >> > >>> Each system has 16CPUs, 90GB RAM (14GB HEAP), 130 cores (3 > replicas > >> > NRT) > >> > >>> with index size ranging from 700MB to 20GB. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> autoCommit - 10 minutes once > >> > >>> softCommit - 30 Sec Once > >> > >>> > >> > >>> At peak time if a shard goes to recovery mode many other shards > also > >> > >> going > >> > >>> to recovery mode in few minutes, which creates huge load (200+ > load > >> > >>> average) and SOLR becomes non responsive. To fix this we are > >> restarting > >> > >> the > >> > >>> node, again leader tries to correct the index by initiating > >> > replication, > >> > >>> which causes load again, and the node goes to non responsive > state. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As soon as a node starts the replication process initiated for all > >> 130 > >> > >>> cores, is there any we control it, like one after the other? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks, > >> > >>> Doss. > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
