17 ms·
Does Lucene 7.0 have a better story around G1 GC? ES has always warned against it, would love to see if that had changed
by lclarkmichalek 9y ago
Does Lucene 7.0 have a better story around G1 GC? ES has always warned against it, would love to see if that had changed
- dakrone 9y agoWe revisit the G1GC recommendation every once it a while. In fact, I am doing benchmarks and testing for G1GC versus CMS with Elasticsearch 6.0.0 right now, so that we have a better idea of where we stand. Disclaimer: I'm an Elasticsearch dev employed by Elastic.
- lclarkmichalek 9y agoCool, I've a pretty big cluster with some GC issues (p90 - 15s, p99 - 60s) during node failures, and would be super interested in those results! If there's anything a user can do to help, my email is on my user page :D
- notimetorelax 9y agoWe observed in past that long GC is the cause of node failures. When long GC happens node doesn’t respond, master node decides that this node had left the cluster :\
- lclarkmichalek 9y agoYa, we often see a node die of natural causes, and then the garbage produced from recovering the node and relocating the data ends up bringing down the rest of the cluster via long GC pauses.
- notimetorelax 9y agoWe run ES on G1GC, have been doing this for the last 3 years. With heaps of more than 20gb in size and a lot of churn CMS just doesn’t cut it. What helps is a high number of replicas to help with any potential corruptions, and that we never treat ES as a primary store.