lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Au <bill.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Solr and Garbage Collection
Date Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:09:48 GMT
SUN's initial release notes actually pretty much said that it was
"unsupported unless you pay".  They had since revised the release notes to
clear up the confusion.
Bill

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, yes - thanks for the clarification. Didn't pay attention to how
> ambiguously I was using "supported" there :)
>
> Bill Au wrote:
> > SUN has recently clarify the issue regarding "unsupported unless you pay"
> > for the G1 garbage collector. Here is the updated release of Java 6
> update
> > 14:
> > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/6u14.html
> >
> >
> > G1 will be part of Java 7, fully supported without pay.  The version
> > included in Java 6 update 14 is a beta release.  Since it is beta, SUN
> does
> > not recommend using it unless you have a support contract because as with
> > any beta software there will be bugs.  Non paying customers may very well
> > have to wait for the official version in Java 7 for bug fixes.
> >
> > Here is more info on the G1 garbage collector:
> >
> > http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/hotspot/gc/g1_intro.jsp
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Another option of course, if you're using a recent version of Java 6:
> >>
> >> try out the beta-ish, unsupported unless you pay, G1 garbage collector.
> >> I've only recently started playing with it, but its supposed to be much
> >> better than CMS. Its supposedly got much better throughput, its much
> >> better at dealing with fragmentation issues (CMS is actually pretty bad
> >> with fragmentation come to find out), and overall its just supposed to
> >> be a very nice leap ahead in GC. Havn't had a chance to play with it
> >> much myself, but its supposed to be fantastic. A whole new approach to
> >> generational collection for Sun, and much closer to the "real time" GC's
> >> available from some other vendors.
> >>
> >> Mark Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>> siping liu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I read pretty much all posts on this thread (before and after this
> one).
> >>>>
> >> Looks like the main suggestion from you and others is to keep max heap
> size
> >> (-Xmx) as small as possible (as long as you don't see OOM exception).
> This
> >> brings more questions than answers (for me at least. I'm new to Solr).
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> First, our environment and problem encountered: Solr1.4 (nightly
> build,
> >>>>
> >> downloaded about 2 months ago), Sun JDK1.6, Tomcat 5.5, running on
> >> Solaris(multi-cpu/cores). The cache setting is from the default
> >> solrconfig.xml (looks very small). At first we used minimum JAVA_OPTS
> and
> >> quickly run into the problem similar to the one orignal poster reported
> --
> >> long pause (seconds to minutes) under load test. jconsole showed that it
> >> pauses on GC. So more JAVA_OPTS get added: "-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC
> >> -XX:+UseParNewGC -XX:ParallelGCThreads=8 -XX:SurvivorRatio=2
> >> -XX:NewSize=128m -XX:MaxNewSize=512m -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=200", the
> thinking
> >> is with mutile-cpu/cores we can get over with GC as quickly as possibe.
> With
> >> the new setup, it works fine until Tomcat reaches heap size, then it
> blocks
> >> and takes minutes on "full GC" to get more space from "tenure
> generation".
> >> We tried different Xmx (from very small to large), no difference in long
> GC
> >> time. We never run into OOM.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>> MaxGCPauseMillis doesnt work with UseConcMarkSweepGC - its for use with
> >>> the Parallel collector. That also doesnt look like a good
> survivorratio.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> * In general various cachings are good for performance, we have more
> RAM
> >>>>
> >> to use and want to use more caching to boost performance, isn't your
> >> suggestion (of lowering heap limit) going against that?
> >>
> >>>>
> >>> Leaving RAM for the FileSystem cache is also very important. But you
> >>> should also have enough RAM for your Solr caches of course.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * Looks like Solr caching made its way into tenure-generation on heap,
> >>>>
> >> that's good. But why they get GC'ed eventually?? I did a quick check of
> Solr
> >> code (Solr 1.3, not 1.4), and see a single instance of using
> WeakReference.
> >> Is that what is causing all this? This seems to suggest a design flaw in
> >> Solr's memory management strategy (or just my ignorance about Solr?). I
> >> mean, wouldn't this be the "right" way of doing it -- you allow user to
> >> specify the cache size in solrconfig.xml, then user can set up heap
> limit in
> >> JAVA_OPTS accordingly, and no need to use WeakReference (BTW, why not
> >> SoftReference)??
> >>
> >>>>
> >>> Do you see concurrent mode failure when looking at your gc logs? ie:
> >>>
> >>> 174.445: [GC 174.446: [ParNew: 66408K->66408K(66416K), 0.0000618
> >>> secs]174.446: [CMS (concurrent mode failure):
> 161928K->162118K(175104K),
> >>> 4.0975124 secs] 228336K->162118K(241520K)
> >>>
> >>> That means you have still getting major collections with CMS, and you
> >>> don't want that. You might try kicking GC off earlier with something
> >>> like: -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=50
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * Right now I have a single Tomcat hosting Solr and other
> applications.
> >>>>
> >> I guess now it's better to have Solr on its own Tomcat, given that it's
> >> tricky to adjust the java options.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: wunder@wunderwood.org
> >>>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>> Subject: RE: Solr and Garbage Collection
> >>>>> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:51:29 -0700
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 30ms is not better or worse than 1s until you look at the service
> >>>>> requirements. For many applications, it is worth dedicating 10%
of
> your
> >>>>> processing time to GC if that makes the worst-case pause short.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, my experience with the IBM JVM was that the
> maximum
> >>>>>
> >> query
> >>
> >>>>> rate was 2-3X better with the concurrent generational GC compared
to
> >>>>>
> >> any of
> >>
> >>>>> their other GC algorithms, so we got the best throughput along with
> the
> >>>>> shortest pauses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Solr garbage generation (for queries) seems to have two major
> >>>>>
> >> components:
> >>
> >>>>> per-request garbage and cache evictions. With a generational
> collector,
> >>>>> these two are handled by separate parts of the collector. Per-request
> >>>>> garbage should completely fit in the short-term heap (nursery),
so
> that
> >>>>>
> >> it
> >>
> >>>>> can be collected rapidly and returned to use for further requests.
If
> >>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>> nursery is too small, the per-request allocations will be made in
> >>>>>
> >> tenured
> >>
> >>>>> space and sit there until the next major GC. Cache evictions are
> almost
> >>>>> always in long-term storage (tenured space) because an LRU algorithm
> >>>>> guarantees that the garbage will be old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Check the growth rate of tenured space (under constant load, of
> course)
> >>>>> while increasing the size of the nursery. That rate should drop
when
> >>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>> nursery gets big enough, then not drop much further as it is
> increased
> >>>>>
> >> more.
> >>
> >>>>> After that, reduce the size of tenured space until major GCs start
> >>>>>
> >> happening
> >>
> >>>>> "too often" (a judgment call). A bigger tenured space means longer
> >>>>>
> >> major GCs
> >>
> >>>>> and thus longer pauses, so you don't want it oversized by too much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also check the hit rates of your caches. If the hit rate is low,
say
> >>>>>
> >> 20% or
> >>
> >>>>> less, make that cache much bigger or set it to zero. Either one
will
> >>>>>
> >> reduce
> >>
> >>>>> the number of cache evictions. If you have an HTTP cache in front
of
> >>>>>
> >> Solr,
> >>
> >>>>> zero may be the right choice, since the HTTP cache is cherry-picking
> >>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>> easily cacheable requests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that a commit nearly doubles the memory required, because you
> have
> >>>>>
> >> two
> >>
> >>>>> live Searcher objects with all their caches. Make sure you have
> >>>>>
> >> headroom for
> >>
> >>>>> a commit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want to test the tenured space usage, you must test with
real
> >>>>>
> >> world
> >>
> >>>>> queries. Those are the only way to get accurate cache eviction rates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wunder
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>> Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.
> Try
> >>>>
> >> it now.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> - Mark
> >>
> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message