Hey Luke, > One thing that has puzzled me is how no one else seems to be > complaining about this :-)
I think a lot of folks out there are probably hitting the same issues and just don't realize it because their opsviz dashboards aren't quite as evolved, or they don't have the time or expertise to dig in. I also know there are a lot of folks who just aren't running HTTP 2, yet. There were a lot of issues with Solr's HTTP 2 support when it was first introduced, and I think a lot of folks turned it off around that time and still run with it disabled today. I'm curious - are there particular log messages that would be a good indicator that someone is hitting this problem? Something easy that folks could use to check even if they don't have a huge amount of time on-hand to dig in? > reproduce this with a minimal Jetty > example, without Solr in the mix That seems like the most promising route forward to me. 👍 Best, Jason On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 4:47 PM Luke Kot-Zaniewski (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I've raised this before during a meetup and on the dev slack > but I'd like to raise it again after a more thorough review > on my part. HTTP/2 seems to struggle with streaming large > responses relative to HTTP/1. I was hoping the problem would > "go away" with the latest versions but I can reproduce the same > slowness and occasional stalling that we saw with Solr 9.X/Jetty 9.x, > running very recent Solr main and Jetty 12. > > After observing the same issues, I decided to do a deeper dive on > HTTP/2 and Jetty's HTTP/2 API. I found a variety of levers to tune > flow-control (one of the major architectural shifts of HTTP/2 over 1) > but TLDR; none of them really worked in improving the performance > reliably. You can read a more detailed version of the analysis here > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18087 > > Some of the tests I ran can be hopefully reproduced running the > benchmarks I added here > https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/4079 > > The linked jira ticket has, among others, an attachment detailing > the stream benchmark results as well as the exact jmh command > that was run to achieve each result listed. > > A possible next step would be to reproduce this with a minimal Jetty > example, without Solr in the mix. At a high level, we are streaming > several large files concurrently over the same HTTP/2 connection, > using Jetty’s InputStreamResponseListener to expose each response as > an InputStream. If we can demonstrate the degradation in a small > standalone test, we could share it with the Jetty project to see > if there are optimizations we are missing, or additional flow-control > control knobs that should be exposed. > > My current understanding is that HTTP/2 is a bigger win for smaller > request/response traffic on connections that are often idle, where > header compression and multiplexing help and flow control is less > likely to be the bottleneck. For concurrent bulk streaming, HTTP > layer flow control seems to hurt performance vs standard TCP which > is famously performant for this kind of workflow. > > One thing that has puzzled me is how no one else seems to be > complaining about this :-). It's possible that our set-up is > unique, i.e. the problem is exacerbated by multiple shards > co-located on a single, addressable node. We may also not be > fully utilizing our network bandwidth with a single TCP connection > and thus piling on to the flow control overhead (but my testing > suggests flow control is significantly contributing to this). > > I'd appreciate any thoughts the community may have about this > issue. I'd also love to hear about your Solr topology (if you > are able to share), i.e. how many shards do you have on a single > process and whether these shards share a single address from the > perspective of other nodes. > > Thanks, > Luke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
