Mike,

Thank you again for your detail suggestions. I did try few options as you
mentioned, such as reducing db in memory size. But as you said, yes, I
enabled many index configuration, so the only choice is to upgrade the
server.

John

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Michael Blakeley <[email protected]> wrote:

> At the moment you probably can't do much with the system because of the
> overloaded memory. But taking a longer view, there may be some
> possibilities for slimming down the database's memory utilization.
>
> Your best option is probably to review your database configuration. Right
> now you appear to be using about 3-kiB per fragment, which is pretty high.
> That number is largely driven by index configuration. I'd guess that you
> have a dozen or more range index values per document? Many applications
> come in under 512-B per fragment, and it's rare that I see more that
> 1.5-kiB per fragment.
>
> I find it helpful to document the application's use of every full-text
> index setting and every additional index enabled, so that it's easy to
> review what the application really needs. By doing this, I have seen
> applications slim down the average fragment memory by as much as 50%.
>
> You could try to eliminate extra fragments. Turning off "automatic
> directory creation" can help, unless you need it for webdav. Turning off
> "maintain last modified" can help, unless you are using properties for
> something important (eg, CPF). Neither of these settings impacts existing
> fragments, so you would have to arrange for them to be deleted, or clear
> the database and reload. Most of the fragments saved using this technique
> will have small memory footprints, on the order of 100-B.
>
> You can also get some marginal return by reducing database in-memory
> limits, which control the sizes of in-memory stands. But there isn't more
> than about half a GB on the table there, and ingestion performance may
> suffer. If you make the limits too small, some documents may not ingest.
>
> You could try to minimize your group-level caches. That's a somewhat
> dangerous game, since trimming them too much will result in
> EXPNTREECACHEFULL and LISTCACHEFULL errors. Those caches generally use
> about 3/8 of RAM, so this can be a *temporary* way to get a little
> breathing room while you make other adjustments. But the system is designed
> to use those caches, and won't perform well if they are too small.
>
> -- Mike
>
> On 4 Nov 2011, at 08:10 , John Zhong wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Mike. And yes, I knew the server was overloaded. I just want
> to know if there is another suggestion except upgrading the server. It is
> probably no.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Michael Blakeley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > To be blunt: that host is out of memory and over capacity.
> >
> > Stop ingestion right away, and revert the configuration changes you have
> made. Turning off merges is almost always a mistake: there ought to be a
> pop quiz built into the configuration screen. You can easily paint yourself
> into a corner. The other changes were almost certainly counterproductive,
> too.
> >
> > How can I tell that you are out of memory? The error message states that
> MarkLogic was unable to map a 5-GiB index. That is only one of many indexes
> that need to memory-map, so I would guess that the system is badly
> overloaded. The rest of the data confirms it: on a 16-GiB host your total
> index memory (aka forest memory) is about 12-GiB. You can't use all the
> host memory for forest indexes: you'll need about that much again for
> group-level caches, and about 25% of RAM for queries, merges, and the OS.
> For your data so far, you ought to have at least 32-GB RAM.
> >
> > Do you know where you are in your total load? Are you about 10% done, or
> closer to 75% done?
> >
> > With the system in its current state, it will probably use a lot of
> virtual memory for paging, and performance will probably be unacceptable.
> Am I right in thinking this is a VM? If so, you may be able to upgrade the
> VM memory without much trouble. Virtual or not, if a memory upgrade isn't
> practical then I would recommend clearing the database and starting over,
> and this time stop before you are out of memory.
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> > On 4 Nov 2011, at 00:33 , John Zhong wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am running MarkLogic 4.1-6 version and encountered the below error
> today:
> > >
> > > XDMP-FORESTERR: Error in merge of forest: SVC-MAPBIG: Mapped file too
> large to map: 5825151760 bytes: 'D:\Program
> Files\MarkLogic\Data\Forests\forest1\00001cde\580f5ba44789ea78_dateTime'
> > >
> > > The MarkLogic instance is running on a EC2 server has 1 CUP with 2
> cores, 17.1GB RAM, 64 bit windows server 2008. We have created only one
> database with one forest, now the forest has 6 stands, total is 86GB, and
> there is still 300GB disk space available.
> > >
> > >                active fragments      deleted fragments      on disk
> size    in memory size
> > > stand 1:     2,922,206               3,320,621                 36,246
> MB      4,162 MB
> > > stand 2:     1,111,868               1,795,830                 39,987
> MB      6,836 MB
> > > stand 3:         63,545                  107,616
> 3,588 MB         606 MB
> > > stand 4:           7,620                   24,492
>  925 MB         163 MB
> > > stand 5:           5,638                     6,882
>  479 MB          79 MB
> > > stand 6:         11,757                    28,626
> 1,761 MB         319 MB
> > > TOTAL:     4,122,634               5,284,067                  82,986
> MB     12,165 MB
> > >
> > > We enable the default merge setting and tried to modify the merge max
> size to 2048 then merge manually, but still failed.
> > >
> > > Now, we disable the merge.
> > >
> > > Any sugestion will be very appreciate!!
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > General mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > General mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > General mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
>
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to