So it doesn't appear that the sum of currentqueries = K * active search 
threads .  In other words they are not proportional.

Currentqueries was flat, and search.active jumped 2 orders of magnitude. 
 We have highly varied indexes and searches.  Some indexes have only one 
shard with one replica and some have 40 shards with 1 replica.  Some 
queries are nothing more than a search string with no boosting ordered by a 
date and with no facets.  Others have 6 facets, boosts, interesting 
analyzers and ordered by score.

I'm sure some searches use more resources than others, but do they expand 
to multiple threads?  I would imagine one could easily expand this out at 
the shard (or maybe segment) level.  I could also imagine that facets could 
get their own threads once the reduced document set was determined.

--Shannon Monasco

P.S. If you don't know about version 0.19.3, but know about .90+ or even 
1.x that's fine.  I'll take answers I can get.

On Friday, July 11, 2014 9:58:03 PM UTC-6, smonasco wrote:
>
> Thanks Ivan!
> On Jul 11, 2014 5:56 PM, "Ivan Brusic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The default in 0.90 (not sure about 0.19.) should still be a fixed search 
>> thread pool: 
>> http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/0.90/modules-threadpool.html
>>
>> I find that the current queries and active threads tends to be the same 
>> number. When I look at my graphs, they have the same movements.
>>
>> If you do not have any queued requests you might want to set a lower cap 
>> if your cluster is experiencing slowness.
>>
>> BTW, the best course of action that you can take is to simply upgrade and 
>> not worry about thread settings. The Lucene 4 improvements (Elasticsearch 
>> 0.90 I believe) were monumental in the space savings. New versions will 
>> offer tons of other improvements, but the 0.90 release was especially great!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Shannon Monasco <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have never seen any queuing on search threads.  Not sure if in .19 it 
>>> defaults to cache or not but that's the behavior I see.
>>>
>>> What about current queries from indices stats?
>>> On Jul 11, 2014 2:53 PM, "Ivan Brusic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Your second paragraph is correct. The threads are the total number of 
>>>> search threads at your disposal, active is the number of ongoing threads 
>>>> and queue are the number of threads that cannot be run since your thread 
>>>> pool is exhausted, which should be when active == threads, but not always 
>>>> the case.
>>>>
>>>> The default number of search threads is based upon the number of 
>>>> processors (3x # of available processors). There is no good metric for 
>>>> determining a balance since searches can be either lightweight 
>>>> (milliseconds) or heavyweight (minutes), but I would argue that the key 
>>>> metric to monitor is your queue. Is it normally empty? Spiky behavior? 
>>>> Requests constantly queued?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/modules-threadpool.html
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:19 PM, smonasco <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I should probably preface everything with I'm running a 5 node cluster 
>>>>> with version 0.19.3 and should be up to version 1.1.2 by the middle of 
>>>>> August, but I have some confusion around metrics I'm seeing, what they 
>>>>> mean 
>>>>> and what are good values.
>>>>>
>>>>> In thread_pools I see threads, active and queued.  Queued + active != 
>>>>> threads.  I assume this really is a work pool and you have active 
>>>>> threads, 
>>>>> a thread count in the work pool and queued work.  So some explanation 
>>>>> around this would be nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've correlated some spikes in search threads with heap mem 
>>>>> utilization explosions.  current searches sort of also correlate, but I 
>>>>> have more current searches than search threads and there is not search 
>>>>> threadpool queueing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how current searches correlate (or if they should/do) 
>>>>> with search threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've observed the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Devestating: 10,000 current searches on worst index sustained over 
>>>>> hours with not much change ending at the same time as spikes of > 1000 
>>>>> search threads (where we generally average < 50) and a heap explosion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly OK: current searches averaging 15 on worst index spiking to 105 
>>>>> with search threads averaging 50 with maxes of 300 spiking to averages of 
>>>>> 120 and maxes of > 1000
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So...  I guess, what are good ranges for search threads and current 
>>>>> searches?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Shannon Monasco
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>> Groups "elasticsearch" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/8723911c-f764-4286-9f52-7750273a7610%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>  
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/8723911c-f764-4286-9f52-7750273a7610%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  -- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>>>> Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/d9V58pThwWY/unsubscribe
>>>> .
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>>>> [email protected].
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CALY%3DcQCMhHOKnX4LFSF5KsQk24CJj6u23w_VyXw%3D2NbOAhjEow%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CALY%3DcQCMhHOKnX4LFSF5KsQk24CJj6u23w_VyXw%3D2NbOAhjEow%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>  -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "elasticsearch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAFDU5W%2BNEi9W5FmjuLsxAQzgQNU2p-LMh%2BV5i3x%2B%2B%3D8cgDHdPQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAFDU5W%2BNEi9W5FmjuLsxAQzgQNU2p-LMh%2BV5i3x%2B%2B%3D8cgDHdPQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "elasticsearch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/d9V58pThwWY/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CALY%3DcQAgVoyQJo%3D-LRhpWq3bqLP1-MC5dOa1JYPETbTa3eNFLQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CALY%3DcQAgVoyQJo%3D-LRhpWq3bqLP1-MC5dOa1JYPETbTa3eNFLQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/e4d4bf22-e57c-4520-9418-23d2c0e7b56e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to