Markus:

See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5216


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Markus Jelsma
<markus.jel...@openindex.io>wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> Got an issue to watch?
>
> Thanks,
> Markus
>
> -----Original message-----
> > From:Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday 4th September 2013 16:55
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: SolrCloud 4.x hangs under high update volume
> >
> > I'm going to try and fix the root cause for 4.5 - I've suspected what it
> is since early this year, but it's never personally been an issue, so it's
> rolled along for a long time.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Tim Vaillancourt <t...@elementspace.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I am looking into an issue we've been having with SolrCloud since the
> > > beginning of our testing, all the way from 4.1 to 4.3 (haven't tested
> 4.4.0
> > > yet). I've noticed other users with this same issue, so I'd really
> like to
> > > get to the bottom of it.
> > >
> > > Under a very, very high rate of updates (2000+/sec), after 1-12 hours
> we
> > > see stalled transactions that snowball to consume all Jetty threads in
> the
> > > JVM. This eventually causes the JVM to hang with most threads waiting
> on
> > > the condition/stack provided at the bottom of this message. At this
> point
> > > SolrCloud instances then start to see their neighbors (who also have
> all
> > > threads hung) as down w/"Connection Refused", and the shards become
> "down"
> > > in state. Sometimes a node or two survives and just returns 503s "no
> server
> > > hosting shard" errors.
> > >
> > > As a workaround/experiment, we have tuned the number of threads sending
> > > updates to Solr, as well as the batch size (we batch updates from
> client ->
> > > solr), and the Soft/Hard autoCommits, all to no avail. Turning off
> > > Client-to-Solr batching (1 update = 1 call to Solr), which also did not
> > > help. Certain combinations of update threads and batch sizes seem to
> > > mask/help the problem, but not resolve it entirely.
> > >
> > > Our current environment is the following:
> > > - 3 x Solr 4.3.1 instances in Jetty 9 w/Java 7.
> > > - 3 x Zookeeper instances, external Java 7 JVM.
> > > - 1 collection, 3 shards, 2 replicas (each node is a leader of 1 shard
> and
> > > a replica of 1 shard).
> > > - Log4j 1.2 for Solr logs, set to WARN. This log has no movement on a
> good
> > > day.
> > > - 5000 max jetty threads (well above what we use when we are healthy),
> > > Linux-user threads ulimit is 6000.
> > > - Occurs under Jetty 8 or 9 (many versions).
> > > - Occurs under Java 1.6 or 1.7 (several minor versions).
> > > - Occurs under several JVM tunings.
> > > - Everything seems to point to Solr itself, and not a Jetty or Java
> version
> > > (I hope I'm wrong).
> > >
> > > The stack trace that is holding up all my Jetty QTP threads is the
> > > following, which seems to be waiting on a lock that I would very much
> like
> > > to understand further:
> > >
> > > "java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (parking)
> > >    at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method)
> > >    - parking to wait for  <0x00000007216e68d8> (a
> > > java.util.concurrent.Semaphore$NonfairSync)
> > >    at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(LockSupport.java:186)
> > >    at
> > >
> java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.parkAndCheckInterrupt(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:834)
> > >    at
> > >
> java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.doAcquireSharedInterruptibly(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:994)
> > >    at
> > >
> java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireSharedInterruptibly(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1303)
> > >    at java.util.concurrent.Semaphore.acquire(Semaphore.java:317)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.util.AdjustableSemaphore.acquire(AdjustableSemaphore.java:61)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.update.SolrCmdDistributor.submit(SolrCmdDistributor.java:418)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.update.SolrCmdDistributor.submit(SolrCmdDistributor.java:368)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.update.SolrCmdDistributor.flushAdds(SolrCmdDistributor.java:300)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.update.SolrCmdDistributor.finish(SolrCmdDistributor.java:96)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.update.processor.DistributedUpdateProcessor.doFinish(DistributedUpdateProcessor.java:462)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.update.processor.DistributedUpdateProcessor.finish(DistributedUpdateProcessor.java:1178)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.handler.ContentStreamHandlerBase.handleRequestBody(ContentStreamHandlerBase.java:83)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHandlerBase.java:135)
> > >    at org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:1820)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.execute(SolrDispatchFilter.java:656)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilter.java:359)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilter.java:155)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1486)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doHandle(ServletHandler.java:503)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:138)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.security.SecurityHandler.handle(SecurityHandler.java:564)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.doHandle(SessionHandler.java:213)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doHandle(ContextHandler.java:1096)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doScope(ServletHandler.java:432)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.doScope(SessionHandler.java:175)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doScope(ContextHandler.java:1030)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:136)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandlerCollection.handle(ContextHandlerCollection.java:201)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerCollection.handle(HandlerCollection.java:109)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerWrapper.handle(HandlerWrapper.java:97)
> > >    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.handle(Server.java:445)
> > >    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.HttpChannel.handle(HttpChannel.java:268)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.server.HttpConnection.onFillable(HttpConnection.java:229)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.io.AbstractConnection$ReadCallback.run(AbstractConnection.java:358)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.QueuedThreadPool.runJob(QueuedThreadPool.java:601)
> > >    at
> > >
> org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.QueuedThreadPool$3.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:532)
> > >    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:724)"
> > >
> > > Some questions I had were:
> > > 1) What exclusive locks does SolrCloud "make" when performing an
> update?
> > > 2) Keeping in mind I do not read or write java (sorry :D), could
> someone
> > > help me understand "what" solr is locking in this case at
> > >
> "org.apache.solr.util.AdjustableSemaphore.acquire(AdjustableSemaphore.java:61)"
> > > when performing an update? That will help me understand where to look
> next.
> > > 3) It seems all threads in this state are waiting for
> "0x00000007216e68d8",
> > > is there a way to tell what "0x00000007216e68d8" is?
> > > 4) Is there a limit to how many updates you can do in SolrCloud?
> > > 5) Wild-ass-theory: would more shards provide more locks (whatever they
> > > are) on update, and thus more update throughput?
> > >
> > > To those interested, I've provided a stacktrace of 1 of 3 nodes at
> this URL
> > > in gzipped form:
> > >
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/timvaillancourt.com/tmp/solr-jstack-2013-08-23.gz
> > >
> > > Any help/suggestions/ideas on this issue, big or small, would be much
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks so much all!
> > >
> > > Tim Vaillancourt
> >
>

Reply via email to