Here is a screenshot of the host information: http://postimg.org/image/vub5ihxix/
As you can see we have 24 core CPU's and the load is only at 5-7.5. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Software Dev <static.void....@gmail.com>wrote: > If that is the case, what would help? > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Otis Gospodnetic < > otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It really depends, hard to give a definitive instruction without more >> pieces of info. >> e.g. if your CPUs are all maxed out and you already have a high number of >> concurrent queries than sharding may not be of any help at all. >> >> Otis >> -- >> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Software Dev <static.void....@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > Ahh.. its including the add operation. That makes sense I then. A bit >> silly >> > on NR's part they don't break it down. >> > >> > Otis, our index is only 8G so I don't consider that big by any means but >> > our queries can get a bit complex with a bit of faceting. Do you still >> > think it makes sense to shard? How easy would this be to get working? >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Otis Gospodnetic < >> > otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I think NR has support for breaking by handler, no? Just checked - >> no. >> > > Only webapp controller, but that doesn't apply to Solr. >> > > >> > > SPM should be more helpful when it comes to monitoring Solr - you can >> > > filter by host, handler, collection/core, etc. -- you can see the >> demo - >> > > https://apps.sematext.com/demo - though this is plain Solr, not >> > SolrCloud. >> > > >> > > If your index is big or queries are complex, shard it and parallelize >> > > search. >> > > >> > > Otis >> > > -- >> > > Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> > > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:17 PM, ralph tice <ralph.t...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I think your response time is including the average response for an >> add >> > > > operation, which generally returns very quickly and due to sheer >> number >> > > are >> > > > averaging out the response time of your queries. New Relic should >> > break >> > > > out requests based on which handler they're hitting but they don't >> seem >> > > to. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Software Dev < >> > static.void....@gmail.com >> > > > >wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Here are some screen shots of our Solr Cloud cluster via Newrelic >> > > > > >> > > > > http://postimg.org/gallery/2hyzyeyc/ >> > > > > >> > > > > We currently have a 5 node cluster and all indexing is done on >> > separate >> > > > > machines and shipped over. Our machines are running on SSD's with >> 18G >> > > of >> > > > > ram (Index size is 8G). We only have 1 shard at the moment with >> > > replicas >> > > > on >> > > > > all 5 machines. I'm guessing thats a bit of a waste? >> > > > > >> > > > > How come when we do our bulk updating the response time actually >> > > > decreases? >> > > > > I would think the load would be higher therefor response time >> should >> > be >> > > > > higher. Any way I can decrease the response time? >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
