A sneaky source of OutOfMemory errors is the permanent generation. If you
add this:
-XX:PermSize=64m -XX:MaxPermSize=96m
You will increase the size of the permanent generation. We found this
helped.
Also note that when you undeploy a war file, the old deployment has
permanent storage that is not reclaimed, and so each undeploy/redeploy cycle
eats up the permanent generation pool.
-----Original Message-----
From: david w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Out of memory on Solr sorting
Hi, Daniel
I got the same probem like Sundar. Is that possible to tell me what
profiling tool you are using?
thx a lot.
/David
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Daniel Alheiros
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi Sundar.
>
> Well it would be good if you could do some profiling on your Solr app.
> I've done it during the indexing process so I could figure out what
> was going on in the OutOfMemoryErrors I was getting.
>
> But you won't definitelly need to have as much memory as your whole
> index size. I have a 3.5 million documents (aprox. 10Gb) running on
> this 2Gb heap VM.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sundar shankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 July 2008 23:45
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting
>
>
> Hi Daniel,
> I am afraid that didnt solve my problem. I was guessing my
> problem was that I have too much of data and too little memory
> allocated for that. I happened to read in couple of the posts which
> mentioned that I need VM that is close to the size of my data(folder).
> I have like 540 Megs now and a little more than a million and a half
> docs. Ideally in that case 512 megs should be enough for me. In fact I
> am able to perform all other operations now, commit, optmize, select,
> update, nightly cron jobs to index data again. etc etc with no
> hassles. Even my load tests perform very well. Just the sort and it
> doesnt seem to work. I allocated
> 2 gigs of memory now. Still same results. Used the GC params u gave me
> too. No change what so ever. Am not sure, whats going on. Is there
> something that I can do to find out how much is needed in actuality as
> my production server might need to be configured in accordance.
>
> I dont store any documents. We basically fetch standard column data
> from oracle database store them into Solr fields. Before I had
> EdgeNGram configured and had Solr 1.2, My data size was less that half
> of what it is right now. I guess if I remember right, it was of the
> order of 100 megs. The max size of a field right now might not cross a 100
chars too.
> Quizzled even more now.
>
> -Sundar
>
> P.S: My configurations :
> Solr 1.3
> Red hat
> 540 megs of data (1855013 docs)
> 2 gigs of memory installed and allocated like this
> JAVA_OPTS=$JAVA_OPTS -Xms2048m -Xmx2048m -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=50
> -XX:NewSize=1024m
> -XX:NewRatio=2 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=3600000
> -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=3600000
>
> Jboss 4.05
>
>
> > Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:49:06 +0100
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [email protected]
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I haven't read the whole thread so I will take my chances here.
> >
> > I've been fighting recently to keep my Solr instances stable because
> > they were frequently crashing with OutOfMemoryErrors. I'm using Solr
> > 1.2 and when it happens there is a bug that makes the index locked
> > unless you restart Solr... So in my cenario it was extremelly
> damaging.
> >
> > After some profiling I realized that my major problem was caused by
> > the way the JVM heap was being used as I haven't configured it to
> > run using any advanced configuration (I had just made it bigger -
> > Xmx and Xms 1.5 Gb), it's running on Sun JVM 1.5 (the most recent
> > 1.5
> > available) and it's deployed on a Jboss 4.2 on a RHEL.
> >
> > So my findings were too many objects were being allocated on the old
> > generation area of the heap, which makes them harder to be disposed,
> > and also the default behaviour was letting the heap get too filled
> > up before kicking a GC and according to the JVM specs the default is
> > if after a short period when a full gc is executed if a certain
> > percentage of the heap is not freed an OutOfMemoryError should be
> thrown.
> >
> > I've changed my JVM startup params and it's working extremelly
> > stable since then:
> >
> > -Xmx2048m -Xms2048m -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=50 -XX:NewSize=1024m
> > -XX:NewRatio=2 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=3600000
> > -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=3600000
> >
> > I hope it helps.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel Alheiros
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fuad Efendi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 22 July 2008 23:23
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting
> >
> > Yes, it is a cache, it stores "sorted" by "sorted field" array of
> > Document IDs together with sorted fields; query results can
> > intersect with it and reorder accordingly.
> >
> > But memory requirements should be well documented.
> >
> > It uses internally WeakHashMap which is not good(!!!) - a lot of
> > "underground" warming ups of caches which SOLR is not aware of...
> > Could be.
> >
> > I think Lucene-SOLR developers should join this discussion:
> >
> >
> > /**
> > * Expert: The default cache implementation, storing all values in
> > memory.
> > * A WeakHashMap is used for storage.
> > *
> > ..............
> >
> > // inherit javadocs
> > public StringIndex getStringIndex(IndexReader reader, String field)
> > throws IOException {
> > return (StringIndex) stringsIndexCache.get(reader, field);
> > }
> >
> > Cache stringsIndexCache = new Cache() {
> >
> > protected Object createValue(IndexReader reader, Object fieldKey)
> > throws IOException {
> > String field = ((String) fieldKey).intern();
> > final int[] retArray = new int[reader.maxDoc()];
> > String[] mterms = new String[reader.maxDoc()+1];
> > TermDocs termDocs = reader.termDocs();
> > TermEnum termEnum = reader.terms (new Term (field, ""));
> > ....................
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Fuad Efendi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I am hoping [new StringIndex (retArray, mterms)] is called only
> > > once
>
> > > per-sort-field and cached somewhere at Lucene;
> > >
> > > theoretically you need multiply number of documents on size of
> > > field
>
> > > (supposing that field contains unique text); you need not tokenize
> > > this field; you need not store TermVector.
> > >
> > > for 2 000 000 documents with simple untokenized text field such as
> > > title of book (256 bytes) you need probably 512 000 000 bytes per
> > > Searcher, and as Mark mentioned you should limit number of
> > > searchers
>
> > > in SOLR.
> > >
> > > So that Xmx512M is definitely not enough even for simple cases...
> > >
> > >
> > > Quoting sundar shankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >> I haven't seen the source code before, But I don't know why the
> > >> sorting isn't done after the fetch is done. Wouldn't that make it
>
> > >> more faster. at least in case of field level sorting? I could be
>
> > >> wrong too and the implementation might probably be better. But
> > >> don't know why all of the fields have had to be loaded.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:26:26 -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
>
> > >>> [email protected]> Subject: Re: Out of memory on Solr
>
> > >>> sorting> > > Ok, after some analysis of FieldCacheImpl:> > - it
> > >>> sorting> > > is
> > >>> supposed that (sorted) Enumeration of "terms" is less than >
> > >>> total number of documents> (so that SOLR uses specific field
> > >>> type
>
> > >>> for sorted searches: > solr.StrField with omitNorms="true")> >
> > >>> It creates int[reader.maxDoc()] array, checks (sorted)
> > >>> Enumeration of > "terms" (untokenized solr.StrField), and
> > >>> populates array with document > Ids.> > > - it also creates
> > >>> array of String> String[] mterms = new
> > >>> String[reader.maxDoc()+1];> > Why
> >
> > >>> do we need that? For 1G
> > >>> document with average term/StrField size > of 100 bytes (which
> > >>> could be unique text!!!) it will create kind of > huge 100Gb
> > >>> cache
> >
> > >>> which is not really needed...> StringIndex value = new
> > >>> StringIndex
> >
> > >>> (retArray, mterms);> > If I understand correctly...
> > >>> StringIndex _must_ be a file in a > filesystem for such a
> case...
> > >>> We create StringIndex, and retrieve top > 10 documents, huge
> > >>> overhead.> > > >
> > >>>> > Quoting Fuad Efendi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> > >> > Ok, what is
> > >>> confusing me is implicit guess that FieldCache contains> > "field"
>
> > >>> and Lucene uses in-memory sort instead of using file-system> >
>
> > >>> "index".......> >> > Array syze: 100Mb (25M x 4 bytes), and it
> > >>> is
>
> > >>> just pointers (4-byte> > integers) to documents in index.> >> >
>
> > >>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue> > ...> >
>
> > >>> 357: protected Object createValue(IndexReader reader, Object
> > >>> fieldKey)> > 358: throws IOException {> > 359: String field =
> > >>> ((String) fieldKey).intern();> > 360: final int[] retArray = new
>
> > >>> int[reader.maxDoc()]; // > > OutOfMemoryError!!!> > ...> > 408:
>
> > >>> StringIndex value = new StringIndex (retArray, mterms);> > 409:
>
> > >>> return value;> > 410: }> > ...> >> > It's very confusing, I
> > >>> don't
>
> > >>> know such internals...> >> >> >>>>> <field name="XXX"
> > >>> type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" > >>>>>
> > >>> termVectors="true"/>> >>>>> The sorting is done based on string
>
> > >>> field.> >> >> > I think Sundar should not use
> > >>> [termVectors="true"]...> >> >> >> > Quoting Mark Miller
> > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> >> >> Hmmm...I think its 32bits an
> > >>> integer with an index entry for each doc, so> >>> >>> >> **25
> > >>> 000
>
> > >>> 000 x 32 bits = 95.3674316 megabytes**> >>> >> Then you have
> > >>> the
>
> > >>> string array that contains each unique term from your> >>
> > >>> index...you can guess that based on the number of terms in your
>
> > >>> index> >> and an avg length guess.> >>> >> There is some other
> > >>> overhead beyond the sort cache as well, but thats> >> the bulk
> > >>> of
>
> > >>> what it will add. I think my memory may be bad with my> >>
> > >>> original estimate :)> >>> >> Fuad Efendi wrote:> >>> Thank you
> > >>> very much Mark,> >>>> >>> it explains me a lot;> >>>> >>> I am
> > >>> guessing: for 1,000,000 documents with a [string] field of >
> > >>> >>>
>
> > >>> average size 1024 bytes I need 1Gb for single IndexSearcher >
> > >>> >>>
>
> > >>> instance; field-level cache it is used internally by Lucene
> > >>> (can > >>> Lucene manage size if it?); we can't have 1G of
> > >>> such documents > >>> without having 1Tb RAM...> >>>> >>>> >>>>
> > >>> >>> Quoting Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> >>>> >>>>
> > >>> Fuad Efendi wrote:> >>>>>> SEVERE: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError:
> > >>> allocLargeObjectOrArray - Object> >>>>>> size: 100767936, Num
> > >>> elements: 25191979> >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> I just noticed, this is an exact number of documents
> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> in
> > >>> index: 25191979> >>>>>> >>>>> (http://www.tokenizer.org/, you
> > >>> can
>
> > >>> sort - click headers Id, > >>>>> [COuntry, Site, Price] in a
> > >>> table; experimental)> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If array is allocated
>
> > >>> ONLY on new searcher warming up I am > >>>>> _extremely_ happy...
>
> > >>> I had constant OOMs during past month (SUN > >>>>> Java 5).>
> > >>> >>>>
>
> > >>> It is only on warmup - I believe its lazy loaded, so the first
>
> > >>> time a> >>>> search is done (solr does the search as part of
> > >>> warmup I believe) the> >>>> fieldcache is loaded. The
> > >>> underlying
>
> > >>> IndexReader is the key to the>
> > >>>>>>> fieldcache, so until you get a new IndexReader
> > >>>>>>> (SolrSearcher in
> > >>> solr> >>>> world?) the field cache will be good. Keep in mind
> > >>> that as a searcher> >>>> is warming, the other search is still
> > >>> serving, so that will up the ram> >>>> requirements...and since
> > >>> I
>
> > >>> think you can have >1 searchers on> >>>> deck...you get the
> > >>> idea.> >>>>> >>>> As far as the number I gave, thats from a
> > >>> memory made months and months> >>>> ago, so go with what you
> > >>> see.> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Quoting Fuad Efendi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've
> > >>>>>>>> even
> > >>> seen exceptions (posted here) when "sort"-type queries caused>
> > >>>>>>>>> Lucene to allocate 100Mb arrays, here is what happened to
> > >>> me:> >>>>>>> >>>>>> SEVERE: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError:
> > >>> allocLargeObjectOrArray - Object> >>>>>> size: 100767936, Num
> > >>> elements: 25191979> >>>>>> at> >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.
> > ja
> > va:360) > >>>>>> at> >>>>>>
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:
> > 72
> > ) - it does not happen after I increased from 4096M to 8192M >
> > >>>>>> (JRockit> >>>>>> R27; more intelligent stacktrace, isn't
> > it?)> >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks Mark; I didn't know that it happens only once (on
> > >>>>>> warming
> > up a> >>>>>> searcher).> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting Mark
> > Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because to sort
> > efficiently, Solr loads the term to sort on for each> >>>>>>> doc in
> > the index into an array. For ints,longs, etc its just an array>
> > >>>>>>> the size of the number of docs in your index (i believe
> > deleted or> >>>>>>> not). For a String its an array to hold each
> > unique string and an array>
> > >>>>>>> of ints indexing into the String array.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> So
> > >>>>>>> if
> > you do a sort, and search for something that only gets 1 doc as a>
> > >>>>>>> hit...your still loading up that field cache for every
> > >>>>>>> single
> > doc in> >>>>>>> your index on the first search. With solr, this
> > happens in the> >>>>>>> background as it warms up the searcher. The
> > end story is, you need more> >>>>>>> RAM to accommodate the sort
> > most likely...have you upped your xmx> >>>>>>> setting? I think you
> > can roughly say a 2 million doc index would need> >>>>>>> 40-50 MB
> > (depending and rough, but to give an idea) per field your> >>>>>>>
> > sorting on.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Mark> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sundar
> > shankar wrote:> >>>>>>>> Thanks Fuad.> >>>>>>>> But why does just
> > sorting provide an OOM. I > >>>>>>>> executed the query without
> > adding the sort clause it executed > >>>>>>>> perfectly. In fact I
> > even tried remove the maxrows=10 and > >>>>>>>> executed. it came out
fine.
> > Queries with bigger results > >>>>>>>> seems to come out fine too.
> > But
>
> > why just sort of that too > >>>>>>>> just 10 rows??> >>>>>>>>
> > -Sundar>
>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008
> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 12:24:35
> > -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>>> To:
> > [email protected]> Subject: RE: Out of > >>>>>>>>> memory
> > on
>
> > Solr sorting> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.
> > ja va:403)> > - this piece of code do not request Array[100M] (as I
> > seen with > Lucene), it asks only few bytes / Kb for a field...> > >
> > Probably
> > 128 - 512 is not enough; it is also advisable to use equal sizes>
> > -Xms1024M -Xmx1024M> (it minimizes GC frequency, and itensures that
> > 1024M is available at startup)> > OOM happens also with fragmented
> > memory, when application requests big > contigues fragment and GC is
> > unable to optimize; looks like your > application requests a little
> > and memory is not available...> > > Quoting sundar shankar
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> > >> >> >> >> From:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [email protected]> >>
> > Subject: Out of memory on Solr sorting> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008
> > 19:11:02 +0000> >>> >>> >> Hi,> >> Sorry again fellos. I am not sure
> > whats happening. The day with > >> solr is bad for me I guess. EZMLM
> > didnt let me send any mails this > >> morning. Asked me to confirm
> > subscription and when I did, it said I > >> was already a member.
> > Now my mails are all coming out bad. Sorry > >> for troubling y'all
> > this bad. I hope this mail comes out right.> >> >> > Hi,> > We are
> > developing a product in a agile manner and the current > >
> > implementation has a data of size just about a 800 megs in dev.> >
> > The
>
> > memory allocated to solr on dev (Dual core Linux box) is 128-512.>
> > >>
> > > My config> > =========> >> >
> > <!-- autocommit pending docs if certain criteria are met> >
> > <autoCommit>> > <maxDocs>10000</maxDocs>> > <maxTime>1000</maxTime>>
> > >
>
> > </autoCommit>> > -->> >> > <filterCache> > class="solr.LRUCache"> >
> > size="512"> > initialSize="512"> > autowarmCount="256"/>> >> >
> > <queryResultCache> > class="solr.LRUCache"> > size="512"> >
> > initialSize="512"> > autowarmCount="256"/>> >> > <documentCache> >
> > class="solr.LRUCache"> > size="512"> > initialSize="512"> >
> > autowarmCount="0"/>> >> >
> > <enableLazyFieldLoading>true</enableLazyFieldLoading>> >> >> > My
> > Field>
> > > =======> >> > <fieldType name="autocomplete"
> > > class="solr.TextField">> <analyzer type="index">> > <tokenizer
> > class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/>> > <filter
> > class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" />> > <filter
> > class="solr.PatternReplaceFilterFactory" > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])"
> > replacement="" replace="all" />> > <filter
> > class="solr.EdgeNGramFilterFactory" > > maxGramSize="100"
> > minGramSize="1" />> > </analyzer>> > <analyzer type="query">> >
> > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/>> > <filter
> > class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" />> > <filter
> > class="solr.PatternReplaceFilterFactory" > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])"
> > replacement="" replace="all" />> > <filter
> > class="solr.PatternReplaceFilterFactory" > > pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?"
> > replacement="$1" replace="all" />> > </analyzer>> > </fieldType>> >>
> > >>
> > > Problem> > ======> >> > I execute a query that returns 24 rows of
> > result. I pick 10 out of > > it. I have no problem when I execute
> > this.>
> > > But When I do sort it by a String field that is fetched from this
> > > >
> > > >
> > result. I get an OOM. I am able to execute several> > other queries
> > with no problem. Just having a sort asc clause added > > to the
> > query throws an OOM. Why is that.> > What should I have ideally
> > done. My config on QA is pretty similar > > to the dev box and
> > probably has more data than on dev.> > It didnt throw any OOM during
> > the integration test. The Autocomplete > > is a new field we added
> > recently.> >> > Another point is that the indexing is done with a
> > field of type string> > <field name="XXX" type="string" indexed="true"
>
> > stored="true" > > termVectors="true"/>> >> > and the autocomplete
> > field is a copy field.>
> > >> > The sorting is done based on string field.> >> > Please do
> > >> > lemme
> > know what mistake am I doing?> >> > Regards> > Sundar> >> > P.S: The
> > stack trace of the exception is> >> >> > Caused by:
> > org.apache.solr.client.solrj.SolrServerException: Error > >
> > executing
> > query> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.client.solrj.request.QueryRequest.process(QueryReque
> > st
> > .j
> > ava:86)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.BaseSolrServer.query(BaseSolrServer.
> > ja
> > va:101)> > at > >
> > com.apollo.sisaw.solr.service.AbstractSolrSearchService.makeSolrQuer
> > y( Ab stractSolrSearchService.java:193)> > ... 105 more> > Caused
> > by:
> > org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Java heap space > >
> > java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space> > at > >
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.
> > ja
> > va:403)> > at
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:
> > 72
> > )> > at > >
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl.getStringIndex(FieldCacheImpl.
> > ja
> > va:352)> > at > >
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue.comparatorString(FieldS
> > or
> > te
> > dHitQueue.java:416)> > at > >
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue$1.createValue(FieldSort
> > ed
> > Hi
> > tQueue.java:207)> > at
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:
> > 72
> > )> > at > >
> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue.getCachedComparator(Fie
> > ld
> > So
> > rtedHitQueue.java:168)> > at > >
> >
> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue.<init>(FieldSortedHitQueue.
> > java:56)> > at > >
> >
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getDocListNC(SolrIndexSearcher.
> > java:907)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getDocListC(SolrIndexSearch
> > er
> > .j
> > ava:838)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.search(SolrIndexSearcher.ja
> > va
> > :2
> > 69)> > at > >
> >
> org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.process(QueryComponent.
> > java:160)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.handler.component.SearchHandler.handleRequestBody(Se
> > ar
> > ch
> > Handler.java:156)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHand
> > le
> > rB
> > ase.java:128)> > at
> > org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:1025)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.execute(SolrDispatchFilter.
> > ja
> > va:338)> > at > >
> > org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilt
> > er
> > .j
> > ava:272)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(App
> > li
> > ca
> > tionFilterChain.java:202)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(Application
> > Fi
> > lt
> > erChain.java:173)> > at > >
> > org.jboss.web.tomcat.filters.ReplyHeaderFilter.doFilter(ReplyHeaderF
> > il
> > te
> > r.java:96)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(App
> > li
> > ca
> > tionFilterChain.java:202)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(Application
> > Fi
> > lt
> > erChain.java:173)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve.invoke(StandardWrapper
> > Va
> > lv
> > e.java:213)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContextValve.invoke(StandardContext
> > Va
> > lv
> > e.java:178)> > at > >
> > org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.SecurityAssociationValve.invoke(Securi
> > ty
> > As
> > sociationValve.java:175)> > at > >
> > org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.JaccContextValve.invoke(JaccContextVal
> > ve
> > .j
> > ava:74)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardHostValve.invoke(StandardHostValve.
> > ja
> > va
> > :126)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.valves.ErrorReportValve.invoke(ErrorReportValve.
> > ja
> > va
> > :105)> > at > >
> > org.jboss.web.tomcat.tc5.jca.CachedConnectionValve.invoke(CachedConn
> > ec
> > ti
> > onValve.java:156)> > at > >
> >
> org.apache.catalina.core.StandardEngineValve.invoke(StandardEngineValve.
> > java:107)> > at > >
> > org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.service(CoyoteAdapter.ja
> > va
> > :1
> > 48)> > at
> > org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Processor.process(Http11Processor.java:
> > 86
> > 9)> >> >
> > _________________________________________________________________> >
> > Wish to Marry Now? Click Here to Register FREE> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > http://www.shaadi.com/registration/user/index.php?ptnr=mhottag>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
> > _________________________________________________________________>
> > >>>>>>>> Missed your favourite programme? Stop surfing TV channels
> > >>>>>>>> and
>
> > >>>>>>>> > start planning your weekend TV viewing with our >
> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> > comprehensive TV Listing> >>>>>>>>
> > http://entertainment.in.msn.com/TV/TVListing.aspx> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
> > >>> >
> > >>>>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Wish to Marry Now? Join Shaadi.com FREE!
> > >> http://www.shaadi.com/registration/user/index.php?ptnr=mhottag
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
> stated.
> > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> > Further communication will signify your consent to this.
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Missed your favourite programme? Stop surfing TV channels and start
> planning your weekend TV viewing with our comprehensive TV Listing
> http://entertainment.in.msn.com/TV/TVListing.aspx
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>
>
