Otis, I want to get those spikes down lower if possible. As mentioned in the above posts that the 25ms timing you are seeing is not really accurate because that's the average response time for ALL requests including the bulk add operations which are generally super fast. Our true response time is around 100ms.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you trying to bring that 24.9 ms response time down? > Looks like there is room for more aggressive sharing there, yes. > > Otis > -- > Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Software Dev <static.void....@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
