But again, GC is not just "Garbage Collection" as many in this thread think... it is also "memory defragmentation" which is much costly than "collection" just because it needs move somewhere _live_objects_ (and wait/lock till such objects get unlocked to be moved...) - obviously more memory helps...
11% is extremely high. -Fuad http://www.linkedin.com/in/liferay > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Ariel [mailto:ionat...@gmail.com] > Sent: September-25-09 3:36 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: FW: Solr and Garbage Collection > > I'm not planning on lowering the heap. I just want to lower the time > "wasted" on GC, which is 11% right now.So what I'll try is changing the GC > to -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Fuad Efendi <f...@efendi.ca> wrote: > > > Mark, > > > > what if piece of code needs 10 contiguous Kb to load a document field? How > > locked memory pieces are optimized/moved (putting on hold almost whole > > application)? > > Lowering heap is _bad_ idea; we will have extremely frequent GC (optimize > > of > > live objects!!!) even if RAM is (theoretically) enough. > > > > -Fuad > > > > > > >Faud, you didn't read the thread right. > > > > > > He is not having a problem with OOM. He got the OOM because he lowered > > > the heap to try and help GC. > > > > > > He normally runs with a heap that can handle his FC. > > > > > > Please re-read the thread. You are confusing the tread. > > > > > > - Mark > > > > > > > > > >> GC will frequently happen even if RAM is more than enough: in case if it > > is > > >> heavily sparse... so that have even more RAM! > > >> -Fuad > > > > > >
