Re: Possible Memory Leaks / Upgrading to a Later Version of Solr or Lucene

[Em <ma...@yahoo.de>]

Hi Simon,

I got no experiences with a distributed environment.
However, what you are talking about reminds me on another post on the
mailing list.

Could it be possible that your slaves not finished their replicating until
the new replication-process starts?
If so, there you got the OOM :).

Just a thought, perhaps it helps.

Regards,
Em
-- 
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Possible-Memory-Leaks-Upgrading-to-a-Later-Version-of-Solr-or-Lucene-tp2321777p2321959.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Possible Memory Leaks / Upgrading to a Later Version of Solr or Lucene

[Simon Wistow <si...@thegestalt.org>]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:55:59AM -0800, Em said:
> Could it be possible that your slaves not finished their replicating until
> the new replication-process starts?
> If so, there you got the OOM :).

This was one of my thoughts as well - we're currently running a slave 
which has no queries in it just to see if that exhibits similar 
behaviour.

My reasoning against it is that we're not seeing any 

	PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=x

in the logs which is something I'd expect to see.

2 minutes doesn't seem like an unreasonable period of time either - the 
docs at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrReplication suggest 20 seconds.