You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-user@lucene.apache.org by Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> on 2005/10/20 21:46:52 UTC
java on 64 bits
Hi everybody!
We have a large Lucene index which gets updated very often.
Until recently the java virtual machine used to manage the index was on
32 bits, although the program was running on a 64bits station. Last week
we changed the java to 64 bits and since then we experience strange
problems, the index grows very large. I'm not sure the 2 are related,
that's why I ask here: is it possible that the index got corrupted
after we updated the jvm? Is there any relation between the size of the
index and the jvm used?
I hope the questions make sense, thanks,
roxana
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: java on 64 bits
Posted by Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com>.
Hello everyone!
Here are the conclusions we got after digging more into the problem,
maybe they help someone:
1) Filling of the hard-drive was not due to java 64, this was
coincidentally.
2) The intermediate files Yonik talked about (*.f*) were present because
the indexing process was merging very large segments, which took a while
to be merged.
3) We are indexing a continous stream of data. As documents get
out-of-date they are deleted from the index. In order to ensure data
throughput we use a batch indexing strategy by setting mergeFactor to
50, but never optimizing. The downside of this is that it will take a
long time before we reach the point where deleted documents are purged
when out-of-date segments are merged. This means we end up with large
segments that contain nothing but deleted documents that could be
deleted if they weren't included in the segments file.
4) Assuming that frequently merging into a large segment doesn't affect
the data throughput, then we should probably have implemented the
strategy as described by Doug Cutting here - scroll down:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-user/29350?page=last
Hth,
casper & roxana
> Thanks everyone for the answers!
> I'm experimenting with your suggestions, I will let you know if
> something interesting pops up.
>
> roxana
>> 1) make sure the failure was due to an OutOfMemory exception and not
>> something else.
>> 2) if you have enough memory, increase the max JVM heap size (-Xmx)
>> 3) if you don't need more than 1.5G or so of heap, use the 32 bit JVM
>> instead (depending on architecture, it can acutally be a little faster
>> because more references fit in the CPU cache).
>> 4) see how many indexed fields you have and if you can consolidate
>> any of
>> them
>> 4.5) if you don't have too many indexed fields, and have enough spare
>> file
>> descriptors, try using the non-compound file format instead.
>> 5) run with the latest version of lucene (1.9 dev version) which may
>> have
>> better memory usage during optimizes & segment merges.
>> 6) If/when optional norms
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-448
>> makes it into lucene, you can apply it to any indexed fields for
>> which you
>> don't need index-time boosting or length normalization.
>>
>> As for getting rid of your current intermediate files, I'd rebuild from
>> scratch just to ensure things are OK.
>>
>> -Yonik
>> Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>>
>> On 10/21/05, Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Yonik, it seems this is the case.
>>> What can we do in this case? Would running the program with java
>>> -d32 be
>>> a solution?
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> roxana
>>>
>>>> One possibility: if lucene runs out of memory while adding or
>>>> optimizing,
>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>> can leave unused files beind that increase the size of the index. A 64
>>>>
>>> bit
>>>
>>>> JVM will require more memory than a 32 bit one due to the size of all
>>>> references being doubled.
>>>>
>>>> If you are using the compound file format (the default - check for
>>>> .cfs
>>>> files), then it's easy to check if you have this problem by seeing if
>>>>
>>> there
>>>
>>>> are any *.f* files in the index directory. These are intermediate
>>>> files
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> shouldn't exist for long in a compound-file index.
>>>>
>>>> -Yonik
>>>> Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: java on 64 bits
Posted by Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com>.
Thanks everyone for the answers!
I'm experimenting with your suggestions, I will let you know if
something interesting pops up.
roxana
>1) make sure the failure was due to an OutOfMemory exception and not
>something else.
>2) if you have enough memory, increase the max JVM heap size (-Xmx)
>3) if you don't need more than 1.5G or so of heap, use the 32 bit JVM
>instead (depending on architecture, it can acutally be a little faster
>because more references fit in the CPU cache).
>4) see how many indexed fields you have and if you can consolidate any of
>them
>4.5) if you don't have too many indexed fields, and have enough spare file
>descriptors, try using the non-compound file format instead.
>5) run with the latest version of lucene (1.9 dev version) which may have
>better memory usage during optimizes & segment merges.
>6) If/when optional norms
>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-448
>makes it into lucene, you can apply it to any indexed fields for which you
>don't need index-time boosting or length normalization.
>
>As for getting rid of your current intermediate files, I'd rebuild from
>scratch just to ensure things are OK.
>
>-Yonik
>Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>
>On 10/21/05, Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> wrote:
>
>>Thank you, Yonik, it seems this is the case.
>>What can we do in this case? Would running the program with java -d32 be
>>a solution?
>>
>>Thanks again,
>>roxana
>>
>>>One possibility: if lucene runs out of memory while adding or optimizing,
>>>
>>it
>>
>>>can leave unused files beind that increase the size of the index. A 64
>>>
>>bit
>>
>>>JVM will require more memory than a 32 bit one due to the size of all
>>>references being doubled.
>>>
>>>If you are using the compound file format (the default - check for .cfs
>>>files), then it's easy to check if you have this problem by seeing if
>>>
>>there
>>
>>>are any *.f* files in the index directory. These are intermediate files
>>>
>>and
>>
>>>shouldn't exist for long in a compound-file index.
>>>
>>>-Yonik
>>>Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: java on 64 bits
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
1) make sure the failure was due to an OutOfMemory exception and not
something else.
2) if you have enough memory, increase the max JVM heap size (-Xmx)
3) if you don't need more than 1.5G or so of heap, use the 32 bit JVM
instead (depending on architecture, it can acutally be a little faster
because more references fit in the CPU cache).
4) see how many indexed fields you have and if you can consolidate any of
them
4.5) if you don't have too many indexed fields, and have enough spare file
descriptors, try using the non-compound file format instead.
5) run with the latest version of lucene (1.9 dev version) which may have
better memory usage during optimizes & segment merges.
6) If/when optional norms
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-448
makes it into lucene, you can apply it to any indexed fields for which you
don't need index-time boosting or length normalization.
As for getting rid of your current intermediate files, I'd rebuild from
scratch just to ensure things are OK.
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
On 10/21/05, Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Yonik, it seems this is the case.
> What can we do in this case? Would running the program with java -d32 be
> a solution?
>
> Thanks again,
> roxana
> >One possibility: if lucene runs out of memory while adding or optimizing,
> it
> >can leave unused files beind that increase the size of the index. A 64
> bit
> >JVM will require more memory than a 32 bit one due to the size of all
> >references being doubled.
> >
> >If you are using the compound file format (the default - check for .cfs
> >files), then it's easy to check if you have this problem by seeing if
> there
> >are any *.f* files in the index directory. These are intermediate files
> and
> >shouldn't exist for long in a compound-file index.
> >
> >-Yonik
> >Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>
>
Re: java on 64 bits
Posted by Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com>.
Thank you, Yonik, it seems this is the case.
What can we do in this case? Would running the program with java -d32 be
a solution?
Thanks again,
roxana
>One possibility: if lucene runs out of memory while adding or optimizing, it
>can leave unused files beind that increase the size of the index. A 64 bit
>JVM will require more memory than a 32 bit one due to the size of all
>references being doubled.
>
>If you are using the compound file format (the default - check for .cfs
>files), then it's easy to check if you have this problem by seeing if there
>are any *.f* files in the index directory. These are intermediate files and
>shouldn't exist for long in a compound-file index.
>
>-Yonik
>Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>
>
>On 10/20/05, Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody!
>>
>>We have a large Lucene index which gets updated very often.
>>Until recently the java virtual machine used to manage the index was on
>>32 bits, although the program was running on a 64bits station. Last week
>>we changed the java to 64 bits and since then we experience strange
>>problems, the index grows very large. I'm not sure the 2 are related,
>>that's why I ask here: is it possible that the index got corrupted
>>after we updated the jvm? Is there any relation between the size of the
>>index and the jvm used?
>>
>>I hope the questions make sense, thanks,
>>roxana
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: java on 64 bits
Posted by Volodymyr Bychkoviak <vb...@i-hypergrid.com>.
You can also try to clean up index with Luke.
Yonik Seeley wrote:
> One possibility: if lucene runs out of memory while adding or optimizing, it
> can leave unused files beind that increase the size of the index. A 64 bit
> JVM will require more memory than a 32 bit one due to the size of all
> references being doubled.
>
> If you are using the compound file format (the default - check for .cfs
> files), then it's easy to check if you have this problem by seeing if there
> are any *.f* files in the index directory. These are intermediate files and
> shouldn't exist for long in a compound-file index.
>
> -Yonik
> Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
>
>
> On 10/20/05, Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody!
>>
>> We have a large Lucene index which gets updated very often.
>> Until recently the java virtual machine used to manage the index was on
>> 32 bits, although the program was running on a 64bits station. Last week
>> we changed the java to 64 bits and since then we experience strange
>> problems, the index grows very large. I'm not sure the 2 are related,
>> that's why I ask here: is it possible that the index got corrupted
>> after we updated the jvm? Is there any relation between the size of the
>> index and the jvm used?
>>
>> I hope the questions make sense, thanks,
>> roxana
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
regards,
Volodymyr Bychkoviak
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: java on 64 bits
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
One possibility: if lucene runs out of memory while adding or optimizing, it
can leave unused files beind that increase the size of the index. A 64 bit
JVM will require more memory than a 32 bit one due to the size of all
references being doubled.
If you are using the compound file format (the default - check for .cfs
files), then it's easy to check if you have this problem by seeing if there
are any *.f* files in the index directory. These are intermediate files and
shouldn't exist for long in a compound-file index.
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://tinyurl.com/7m67g
On 10/20/05, Roxana Angheluta <ro...@attentio.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody!
>
> We have a large Lucene index which gets updated very often.
> Until recently the java virtual machine used to manage the index was on
> 32 bits, although the program was running on a 64bits station. Last week
> we changed the java to 64 bits and since then we experience strange
> problems, the index grows very large. I'm not sure the 2 are related,
> that's why I ask here: is it possible that the index got corrupted
> after we updated the jvm? Is there any relation between the size of the
> index and the jvm used?
>
> I hope the questions make sense, thanks,
> roxana
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>