Thanks for pointing these out, but I still have one concern, why is the
Virtual Memory running in 300g+?

Regards,
Rohit
Mobile: +91-9901768202
About Me: http://about.me/rohitg


-----Original Message-----
From: Bernd Fehling [mailto:bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de] 
Sent: 12 April 2012 11:58
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: solr 3.5 taking long to index


There were some changes in solrconfig.xml between solr3.1 and solr3.5.
Always read CHANGES.txt when switching to a new version.
Also helpful is comparing both versions of solrconfig.xml from the examples.

Are you sure you need a MaxPermSize of 5g?
Use jvisualvm to see what you really need.
This is also for all other JAVA_OPTS.



Am 11.04.2012 19:42, schrieb Rohit:
> We recently migrated from solr3.1 to solr3.5,  we have one master and 
> one slave configured. The master has two cores,
> 
>  
> 
> 1) Core1 - 44555972 documents
> 
> 2) Core2 - 29419244 documents
> 
>  
> 
> We commit every 5000 documents, but lately the commit is taking very 
> long 15 minutes plus in some cases. What could have caused this, I 
> have checked the logs and the only warning i can see is,
> 
>  
> 
> "WARNING: Use of deprecated update request parameter update.processor 
> detected. Please use the new parameter update.chain instead, as 
> support for update.processor will be removed in a later version."
> 
>  
> 
> Memory details:
> 
>  
> 
> export JAVA_OPTS="$JAVA_OPTS -Xms6g -Xmx36g -XX:MaxPermSize=5g"
> 
>  
> 
> Solr Config:
> 
>  
> 
> <useCompoundFile>false</useCompoundFile>
> 
> <mergeFactor>10</mergeFactor>
> 
> <ramBufferSizeMB>32</ramBufferSizeMB>
> 
> <!-- <maxBufferedDocs>1000</maxBufferedDocs> -->
> 
>   <maxFieldLength>10000</maxFieldLength>
> 
>   <writeLockTimeout>1000</writeLockTimeout>
> 
>   <commitLockTimeout>10000</commitLockTimeout>
> 
>  
> 
> What could be causing this, as everything was running fine a few days
back?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rohit
> 
> Mobile: +91-9901768202
> 
> About Me:  <http://about.me/rohitg> http://about.me/rohitg
> 
>  
> 
> 


Reply via email to