> > In the case of the Linux machine, I can illustrate that there is > definitely a reporting bug. If you take the 48GB currently allocated to > the disk cache, and add the *reported* 22GB resident size of the Solr > process, you get 70GB ... but the machine only has 64GB total.
I'm not sure you can add RES and cached together. RES includes file-backed pages (i.e. it's not just anon pages), but those same pages may also be in the page cache and reported in cached. On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Shawn Heisey <[email protected]> wrote: > I have seen something very odd with memory reporting in both Windows and > Linux. > > This may not be the correct list for this question, but I am already > subscribed to a very large number of mailing lists and would prefer to > not add another one for a one-off question. I apologize if this is the > wrong list. > > Take a look at these two screenshots: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/64en3sar4cr1ytj/linux-solr-mem-high-shr.png?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4bnrb66r16lpx1/Resource%20Monitor.png?dl=0 > > The first one is a Linux server that I am running, the second is a > Windows server that someone else is running. Both machines are running > Solr. The Windows machine is running two copies of Solr, and the Solr > processes are at the top of both lists. The Linux machine has an 8GB > heap for its copy of Solr, and I believe that each of the copies of Solr > on the Windows machine have the heap set to 14GB. > > In both cases, the shared memory reported is very high, with the > resident (or working) memory *far* higher than the configured heap size. > > In the case of the Linux machine, I can illustrate that there is > definitely a reporting bug. If you take the 48GB currently allocated to > the disk cache, and add the *reported* 22GB resident size of the Solr > process, you get 70GB ... but the machine only has 64GB total. > > On the Linux machine, Solr is accessing over 100GB of data via MMap (see > the VIRT memory size of 121GB). This is the data that is in the disk > cache. I was told that the indexes are even larger on the Windows machine. > > This is the Java version on the Linux machine. I am working to learn > what the version is on the Windows machine. > > java version "1.7.0_72" > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_72-b14) > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.72-b04, mixed mode) > > Here are the packages providing this Java version (CentOS 6.6). I used > the source RPM on the city-fan.org website and the official tarball from > Oracle: > > java-1.7.0-oracle-jdbc-1.7.0.72-1.0.cf.x86_64 > java-1.7.0-oracle-devel-1.7.0.72-1.0.cf.x86_64 > java-1.7.0-oracle-1.7.0.72-1.0.cf.x86_64 > > Is this memory reporting problem a bug in Java or a bug in both > operating systems? I do not have easy access to any other OS platforms. > > Thanks, > Shawn > _______________________________________________ > hotspot-gc-use mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/hotspot-gc-use >
_______________________________________________ hotspot-gc-use mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/hotspot-gc-use
