On 26/05/2019 19:15, Joe Doupnik wrote:
On 26/05/2019 19:08, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 5/25/2019 9:40 AM, Joe Doupnik wrote:
Comparing memory consumption (real, not virtual) of quiesent
Solr v8.0 and prior with Solr v8.1.0 reveals the older versions use
about 1.6GB on my systems but v8.1.0 uses 4.5 to 5+GB. Systems used
are SUSE Linux, with Oracle JDK v1.8 and openjdk v10. This is a
major memory consumption issue. I have seen no mention of it in the
docs nor forums.
If Solr is using 4 to 5 GB of memory on your system, it is only doing
that because you told it that it was allowed to.
If you run a Java program with a minimum heap that's smaller than the
max heap, which Solr does not do by default, then what you will find
is that Java *might* stay lower than the maximum for a while. But
eventually it WILL allocate the entire maximum heap from the OS, plus
some extra for Java itself to work with. Solr 8.0 and Solr 8.1 are
not different from each other in this regard.
Thanks,
Shawn
--------
Not to be argumentative, prior to Solr v8.1 quiesent resident
memory remained at about the 1.6GB level, and during active indexing
it could exceed 3.5GB. With the same configuration settings Solr v8.1
changes that to use _a lot_ more memory. Thus something significant
has changed with Solr v8.1 when compared to its predecessors. The
question is what, and what can we do about it.
I am not about to enter a guessing game with Solr and Java and its
heap usage. That is far to complex to hope to win.
Thus, something changed, for the worse here in the field, and I do
not know what.
Thanks,
Joe D.
---------------
If I were forced to guess about this situation it woud be to flag
an item mentioned vaguely in passing: the garbage collector. How to
return it to status quo ante is not known here. Presumably such a step
would be covered in the yet to appear documentation for Solr v8.1
To add a little more to the story. Memory remained at the 1.6GB
level except when doing heavy indexing. To "adjust" Solr so that it
always consumes too much, as at present, is not acceptable, nor is
acceptable risking trouble by setting an upper limit down to say 1.6GB
and thence cause indexing to fail.
We see the dilemna. Expert assistance is needed to resolve this.
Thanks,
Joe D.