Hi Jörn , I am using version 8.2. I repeated the test twice for each mode. I restarted solr nodes and deleted / created empty collection each time.
Regards. Dominique Le ven. 25 oct. 2019 à 09:20, Jörn Franke <jornfra...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Which Solr version are you using and how often you repeated the test? > > > Am 25.10.2019 um 09:16 schrieb Dominique Bejean < > dominique.bej...@eolya.fr>: > > > > Hi, > > > > I made some benchmarks for bulk indexing in order to compare performances > > and ressources usage for NRT versus TLOG replica. > > > > Environnent : > > * Solrcloud with 4 Solr nodes (8 Gb RAM, 4 Gb Heap) > > * 1 collection with 2 shards x 2 replicas (all NRT or all TLOG) > > * 1 core per Solr Server > > > > Indexing of a 10.000.000 documents in one json file with bin/post script > > > > If I compare NRT vs TLOG indexing, I see : > > > > For collection created with all replicas as NRT > > > > * Indexing time : 22 minutes > > * GC times : identical on all nodes > > * GC count : identical on all nodes > > * Heap size : identical on all nodes > > * CPU Load / CPU usage : identical on all nodes > > > > For collection created with all replicas as TLOG > > > > * Indexing time : 34 minutes > > * GC times : identical on all nodes > > * GC count : identical on all nodes > > * Heap size : identical on all nodes > > * CPU Load / CPU usage : identical on NRT leaders, divide by 4 on TLOG > not > > leaders > > > > > > The conclusion seems to be that by using TLOG : > > > > * You save CPU resources on non leaders nodes at index time > > * The JVM Heap and GC are the same > > * Indexing performance ares really less with TLOG > > > > I am disappointed in TLOG mode by very slower indexing time and by JVM > Heap > > / GC. > > > > Are these results conform to what we could expect ? > > What can explain bad batch indexing performances in TLOG mode ? > > > > I have Grafana graph for all these metrics during tests. > > > > Rergards. > > > > Dominique >
