Lance, Thanks for your help. What do you mean by that the OS can keep the index in memory better than Solr? Do you mean that you should use another means to keep the index in memory (i.e. ramdisk)? Is there a generally accepted heap size/index size that you follow?
Thanks Amit On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote: > The price-performance knee for small servers is 32G ram, 2-6 SATA > disks on a raid, 8/16 cores. You can buy these servers and half-fill > them, leaving room for expansion. > > I have not done benchmarks about the max # of processors that can be > kept busy during indexing or querying, and the total numbers: QPS, > response time averages & variability, etc. > > If your index file size is 8G, and your Java heap is 8G, you will do > long garbage collection cycles. The operating system is very good at > keeping your index in memory- better than Solr can. > > Lance > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Amit Nithian <anith...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am curious to know get some opinions on at what point having more CPU > > cores shows diminishing returns in terms of QPS. Our index size is about > 8GB > > and we have 16GB of RAM on a quad core 4 x 2.4 GHz AMD Opteron 2216. > > Currently I have the heap to 8GB. > > > > We are looking to get more servers to increase capacity and because the > > warranty is set to expire on our old servers and so I was curious before > > asking for a certain spec what others run and at what point does having > more > > cores cease to matter? Mainly looking at somewhere between 4-12 cores per > > server. > > > > Thanks! > > Amit > > > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com >
