Shawn: You're right, I thought I'd seen it as a <field> option but I think I was confusing really old solr.
Thanks for catching, having gotten it wrong once I'm sure I'll remember it better for next time! Erick On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM, SandeepM <skmi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Eric and Shawn, > > Your explanations help understand where SOLR may be spending its time. > Sounds like compression can be a CPU and heap hog. (I'll try to confirm this > with the heapdumps) > > Initially we tried to keep the JVM heap sizes the same on both Solr 3.5 and > 4.2.1, which was around 3GB ,which 3.5 handled well even with a 200QPS load. > Moving to 4.2.1 with the same heap size instantly killed the Server. > Changing the JVM to 6GB (double) did not help either. We were seeing higher > CPU and higher heap usage. > > We later changed cache settings so as to reduce their sizes, increased the > JVM to 8GB and we see an improvement. But over time, we do see that the > Heap utilization slowly climbs as the 200QPS test is allowed to run, and > sometimes leads to max heap being exceeded from the JConsole. So we see the > jagged edge waveform which keeps climbing (GC cycles don't completely > collect memory over time). Our test has a short capture from real traffic > and we are replaying that via solrmeter. > > Thanks. > Regards, > -- Sandeep > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-2-1-higher-memory-footprint-vs-Solr-3-5-tp4067879p4068150.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
