Hi Ronen,
If you think that it is unintentional explicit commit that is causing this, you 
can disable explicit commit with IgnoreCommitOptimizeUpdateProcessorFactory.

HTH,
Emir
--
Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection
Solr & Elasticsearch Consulting Support Training - http://sematext.com/



> On 27 Apr 2021, at 19:07, Ronen Nussbaum <rone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I have a cluster of seven servers, running Solr 8.3.0
> Collection is divided into 64 shards, each shard has a replica.
> Total number of documents: ~700M, but most are nested (childs) so an
> effective number is 20M parents.
> Ingestion is quite heavy.
> Auto commit is configured like this:
>     <autoCommit>
>       <!-- every minute -->
>       <maxTime>${solr.autoCommit.maxTime:60000}</maxTime>
>       <maxDocs>${solr.autoCommit.maxDocs:50000}</maxDocs>
>       <openSearcher>*false*</openSearcher>
>     </autoCommit>
> 
>     <autoSoftCommit>
>       <!-- every 5 minutes -->
>       <maxTime>${solr.autoSoftCommit.maxTime:300000}</maxTime>
>     </autoSoftCommit>
> 
> I'm trying to understand why there are so many "SolrIndexSearcher Opening"
> events in the log e.g.
> [2021-04-19T14:45:27.019] INFO [qtp1686100174-260205]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@3fae69f8[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:45:27.061] INFO [qtp1686100174-258896]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@2a47a89c[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:45:37.193] INFO [qtp1686100174-256821]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@3bf060ea[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:45:41.284] INFO [qtp1686100174-258269]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@2b18321b[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:46:02.238] INFO [qtp1686100174-258858]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@76f4935f[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:46:07.248] INFO [qtp1686100174-256407]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@f086b3a[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:46:16.609] INFO [qtp1686100174-257476]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@15b79751[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:46:29.856] INFO [qtp1686100174-259689]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@bf0a783[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:46:56.211] INFO [qtp1686100174-257346]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@43d22ad5[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:47:06.972] INFO [qtp1686100174-256721]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@1779ccd1[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:47:21.089] INFO [qtp1686100174-259395]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@368b2cfb[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:47:44.583] INFO [qtp1686100174-256722]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@11afa0d8[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:47:54.912] INFO [qtp1686100174-256157]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@38cb7e42[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:48:14.520] INFO [qtp1686100174-258515]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@479d4204[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> [2021-04-19T14:48:18.961] INFO [qtp1686100174-253862]
> org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher Opening
> [Searcher@164a03a6[1602350_shard46_replica_n182]
> realtime]
> 
> Between 00:00 and 17:00 (17 hours) I have ~1500 lines like the above, and
> ~800 lines "registered new searcher".
> This time period is ~1000 minutes so I was expecting 1000/5=200 events
> (soft commit each 5 minutes).
> This doesn't look good to me.
> Could it be affected by clients submitting a commit request?
> Should I use a different configuration?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Ronen.

Reply via email to