Hi Kuli Is Just raising. Thanks for the explanation.
Regards Anderson 2012/5/11 Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> > On 5/11/2012 9:30 AM, Anderson vasconcelos wrote: > >> HI Kuli >> >> The free -m command gives me >> total used free shared buffers >> cached >> Mem: 9991 9934 57 0 75 5759 >> -/+ buffers/cache: 4099 5892 >> Swap: 8189 3395 4793 >> >> You can see that has only 57m free and 5GB cached. >> >> In top command, the glassfish process used 79,7% of memory: >> >> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >> COMMAND >> 4336 root 21 0 29.7g 7.8g 4.0g S 0.3 79.7 5349:14 >> java >> >> >> If i increase the memory of server for more 2GB, the SO will be use this >> additional 2GB in cache? I need to increse the memory size? >> > > Are you having a problem you need to track down, or are you just raising a > concern because your memory usage is not what you expected? > > It is 100% normal for a Linux system to show only a few megabytes of > memory free. To make things run faster, the OS caches disk data using > memory that is not directly allocated to programs or the OS itself. If a > program requests memory, the OS will allocate it immediately, it simply > forgets the least used part of the cache. > > Windows does this too, but Microsoft decided that novice users would freak > out if the task manager were to give users the true picture of memory > usage, so they exclude disk cache when calculating free memory. It's not > really a lie, just not the full true picture. > > A recent version of Solr (3.5, if I remember right) made a major change in > the way that the index files are accessed. The way things are done now is > almost always faster, but it makes the memory usage in the top command > completely useless. The VIRT memory size includes all of your index files, > plus all the memory that the java process is capable of allocating, plus a > little that i can't quite account for. The RES size is also bigger than > expected, and I'm not sure why. > > Based on the numbers above, I am guessing that your indexes take up > 15-20GB of disk space. For best performance, you would want a machine with > at least 24GB of RAM so that your entire index can fit into the OS disk > cache. The 10GB you have (which leaves the 5.8 GB for disk cache as you > have seen) may be good enough to cache the frequently accessed portions of > your index, so your performance might be just fine. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
