mirror of
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch.git
synced 2025-06-28 09:28:55 -04:00
Adds a little more detail on what sorts of problems may occur if you exceed the default limits.
546 lines
20 KiB
Text
546 lines
20 KiB
Text
[[size-your-shards]]
|
||
== Size your shards
|
||
|
||
Each index in {es} is divided into one or more shards, each of which may be
|
||
replicated across multiple nodes to protect against hardware failures. If you
|
||
are using <<data-streams>> then each data stream is backed by a sequence of
|
||
indices. There is a limit to the amount of data you can store on a single node
|
||
so you can increase the capacity of your cluster by adding nodes and increasing
|
||
the number of indices and shards to match. However, each index and shard has
|
||
some overhead and if you divide your data across too many shards then the
|
||
overhead can become overwhelming. A cluster with too many indices or shards is
|
||
said to suffer from _oversharding_. An oversharded cluster will be less
|
||
efficient at responding to searches and in extreme cases it may even become
|
||
unstable.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[create-a-sharding-strategy]]
|
||
=== Create a sharding strategy
|
||
|
||
The best way to prevent oversharding and other shard-related issues is to
|
||
create a sharding strategy. A sharding strategy helps you determine and
|
||
maintain the optimal number of shards for your cluster while limiting the size
|
||
of those shards.
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all sharding strategy. A strategy that
|
||
works in one environment may not scale in another. A good sharding strategy
|
||
must account for your infrastructure, use case, and performance expectations.
|
||
|
||
The best way to create a sharding strategy is to benchmark your production data
|
||
on production hardware using the same queries and indexing loads you'd see in
|
||
production. For our recommended methodology, watch the
|
||
https://www.elastic.co/elasticon/conf/2016/sf/quantitative-cluster-sizing[quantitative
|
||
cluster sizing video]. As you test different shard configurations, use {kib}'s
|
||
{kibana-ref}/elasticsearch-metrics.html[{es} monitoring tools] to track your
|
||
cluster's stability and performance.
|
||
|
||
The following sections provide some reminders and guidelines you should
|
||
consider when designing your sharding strategy. If your cluster is already
|
||
oversharded, see <<reduce-cluster-shard-count>>.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-sizing-considerations]]
|
||
=== Sizing considerations
|
||
|
||
Keep the following things in mind when building your sharding strategy.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[single-thread-per-shard]]
|
||
==== Searches run on a single thread per shard
|
||
|
||
Most searches hit multiple shards. Each shard runs the search on a single
|
||
CPU thread. While a shard can run multiple concurrent searches, searches across a
|
||
large number of shards can deplete a node's <<modules-threadpool,search
|
||
thread pool>>. This can result in low throughput and slow search speeds.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[each-shard-has-overhead]]
|
||
==== Each index, shard, segment and field has overhead
|
||
|
||
Every index and every shard requires some memory and CPU resources. In most
|
||
cases, a small set of large shards uses fewer resources than many small shards.
|
||
|
||
Segments play a big role in a shard's resource usage. Most shards contain
|
||
several segments, which store its index data. {es} keeps some segment metadata
|
||
in heap memory so it can be quickly retrieved for searches. As a shard grows,
|
||
its segments are <<index-modules-merge,merged>> into fewer, larger segments.
|
||
This decreases the number of segments, which means less metadata is kept in
|
||
heap memory.
|
||
|
||
Every mapped field also carries some overhead in terms of memory usage and disk
|
||
space. By default {es} will automatically create a mapping for every field in
|
||
every document it indexes, but you can switch off this behaviour to
|
||
<<explicit-mapping,take control of your mappings>>.
|
||
|
||
Moreover every segment requires a small amount of heap memory for each mapped
|
||
field. This per-segment-per-field heap overhead includes a copy of the field
|
||
name, encoded using ISO-8859-1 if applicable or UTF-16 otherwise. Usually this
|
||
is not noticeable, but you may need to account for this overhead if your shards
|
||
have high segment counts and the corresponding mappings contain high field
|
||
counts and/or very long field names.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-auto-balance]]
|
||
==== {es} automatically balances shards within a data tier
|
||
|
||
A cluster's nodes are grouped into <<data-tiers,data tiers>>. Within each tier,
|
||
{es} attempts to spread an index's shards across as many nodes as possible. When
|
||
you add a new node or a node fails, {es} automatically rebalances the index's
|
||
shards across the tier's remaining nodes.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-size-best-practices]]
|
||
=== Best practices
|
||
|
||
Where applicable, use the following best practices as starting points for your
|
||
sharding strategy.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[delete-indices-not-documents]]
|
||
==== Delete indices, not documents
|
||
|
||
Deleted documents aren't immediately removed from {es}'s file system.
|
||
Instead, {es} marks the document as deleted on each related shard. The marked
|
||
document will continue to use resources until it's removed during a periodic
|
||
<<index-modules-merge,segment merge>>.
|
||
|
||
When possible, delete entire indices instead. {es} can immediately remove
|
||
deleted indices directly from the file system and free up resources.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[use-ds-ilm-for-time-series]]
|
||
==== Use data streams and {ilm-init} for time series data
|
||
|
||
<<data-streams,Data streams>> let you store time series data across multiple,
|
||
time-based backing indices. You can use <<index-lifecycle-management,{ilm}
|
||
({ilm-init})>> to automatically manage these backing indices.
|
||
|
||
One advantage of this setup is
|
||
<<getting-started-index-lifecycle-management,automatic rollover>>, which creates
|
||
a new write index when the current one meets a defined `max_primary_shard_size`,
|
||
`max_age`, `max_docs`, or `max_size` threshold. When an index is no longer
|
||
needed, you can use {ilm-init} to automatically delete it and free up resources.
|
||
|
||
{ilm-init} also makes it easy to change your sharding strategy over time:
|
||
|
||
* *Want to decrease the shard count for new indices?* +
|
||
Change the <<index-number-of-shards,`index.number_of_shards`>> setting in the
|
||
data stream's <<data-streams-change-mappings-and-settings,matching index
|
||
template>>.
|
||
|
||
* *Want larger shards or fewer backing indices?* +
|
||
Increase your {ilm-init} policy's <<ilm-rollover,rollover threshold>>.
|
||
|
||
* *Need indices that span shorter intervals?* +
|
||
Offset the increased shard count by deleting older indices sooner. You can do
|
||
this by lowering the `min_age` threshold for your policy's
|
||
<<ilm-index-lifecycle,delete phase>>.
|
||
|
||
Every new backing index is an opportunity to further tune your strategy.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-size-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Aim for shards of up to 200M documents, or with sizes between 10GB and 50GB
|
||
|
||
There is some overhead associated with each shard, both in terms of cluster
|
||
management and search performance. Searching a thousand 50MB shards will be
|
||
substantially more expensive than searching a single 50GB shard containing the
|
||
same data. However, very large shards can also cause slower searches and will
|
||
take longer to recover after a failure.
|
||
|
||
There is no hard limit on the physical size of a shard, and each shard can in
|
||
theory contain up to just over two billion documents. However, experience shows
|
||
that shards between 10GB and 50GB typically work well for many use cases, as
|
||
long as the per-shard document count is kept below 200 million.
|
||
|
||
You may be able to use larger shards depending on your network and use case,
|
||
and smaller shards may be appropriate for
|
||
{enterprise-search-ref}/index.html[Enterprise Search] and similar use cases.
|
||
|
||
If you use {ilm-init}, set the <<ilm-rollover,rollover action>>'s
|
||
`max_primary_shard_size` threshold to `50gb` to avoid shards larger than 50GB.
|
||
|
||
To see the current size of your shards, use the <<cat-shards,cat shards API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/shards?v=true&h=index,prirep,shard,store&s=prirep,store&bytes=gb
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
The `pri.store.size` value shows the combined size of all primary shards for
|
||
the index.
|
||
|
||
[source,txt]
|
||
----
|
||
index prirep shard store
|
||
.ds-my-data-stream-2099.05.06-000001 p 0 50gb
|
||
...
|
||
----
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[non_json]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/\.ds-my-data-stream-2099\.05\.06-000001/my-index-000001/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/50gb/.*/]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-count-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Master-eligible nodes should have at least 1GB of heap per 3000 indices
|
||
|
||
The number of indices a master node can manage is proportional to its heap
|
||
size. The exact amount of heap memory needed for each index depends on various
|
||
factors such as the size of the mapping and the number of shards per index.
|
||
|
||
As a general rule of thumb, you should have fewer than 3000 indices per GB of
|
||
heap on master nodes. For example, if your cluster has dedicated master nodes
|
||
with 4GB of heap each then you should have fewer than 12000 indices. If your
|
||
master nodes are not dedicated master nodes then the same sizing guidance
|
||
applies: you should reserve at least 1GB of heap on each master-eligible node
|
||
for every 3000 indices in your cluster.
|
||
|
||
Note that this rule defines the absolute maximum number of indices that a
|
||
master node can manage, but does not guarantee the performance of searches or
|
||
indexing involving this many indices. You must also ensure that your data nodes
|
||
have adequate resources for your workload and that your overall sharding
|
||
strategy meets all your performance requirements. See also
|
||
<<single-thread-per-shard>> and <<each-shard-has-overhead>>.
|
||
|
||
To check the configured size of each node's heap, use the <<cat-nodes,cat nodes
|
||
API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/nodes?v=true&h=heap.max
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
You can use the <<cat-shards,cat shards API>> to check the number of shards per
|
||
node.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/shards?v=true
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-count-per-node-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Add enough nodes to stay within the cluster shard limits
|
||
|
||
The <<cluster-shard-limit,cluster shard limits>> prevent creation of more than
|
||
1000 non-frozen shards per node, and 3000 frozen shards per dedicated frozen
|
||
node. Make sure you have enough nodes of each type in your cluster to handle
|
||
the number of shards you need.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[field-count-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Allow enough heap for field mappers and overheads
|
||
|
||
Mapped fields consume some heap memory on each node, and require extra
|
||
heap on data nodes.
|
||
Ensure each node has enough heap for mappings, and also allow
|
||
extra space for overheads associated with its workload. The following sections
|
||
show how to determine these heap requirements.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
===== Mapping metadata in the cluster state
|
||
|
||
Each node in the cluster has a copy of the <<cluster-state-api-desc,cluster state>>.
|
||
The cluster state includes information about the field mappings for
|
||
each index. This information has heap overhead. You can use the
|
||
<<cluster-stats,Cluster stats API>> to get the heap overhead of the total size of
|
||
all mappings after deduplication and compression.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cluster/stats?human&filter_path=indices.mappings.total_deduplicated_mapping_size*
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:node]
|
||
|
||
This will show you information like in this example output:
|
||
|
||
[source,console-result]
|
||
----
|
||
{
|
||
"indices": {
|
||
"mappings": {
|
||
"total_deduplicated_mapping_size": "1gb",
|
||
"total_deduplicated_mapping_size_in_bytes": 1073741824
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"total_deduplicated_mapping_size": "1gb"/"total_deduplicated_mapping_size": $body.$_path/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"total_deduplicated_mapping_size_in_bytes": 1073741824/"total_deduplicated_mapping_size_in_bytes": $body.$_path/]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
===== Retrieving heap size and field mapper overheads
|
||
|
||
You can use the <<cluster-nodes-stats,Nodes stats API>> to get two relevant metrics
|
||
for each node:
|
||
|
||
* The size of the heap on each node.
|
||
|
||
* Any additional estimated heap overhead for the fields per node. This is specific to
|
||
data nodes, where apart from the cluster state field information mentioned above,
|
||
there is additional heap overhead for each mapped field of an index held by the data
|
||
node. For nodes which are not data nodes, this field may be zero.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _nodes/stats?human&filter_path=nodes.*.name,nodes.*.indices.mappings.total_estimated_overhead*,nodes.*.jvm.mem.heap_max*
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:node]
|
||
|
||
For each node, this will show you information like in this example output:
|
||
|
||
[source,console-result]
|
||
----
|
||
{
|
||
"nodes": {
|
||
"USpTGYaBSIKbgSUJR2Z9lg": {
|
||
"name": "node-0",
|
||
"indices": {
|
||
"mappings": {
|
||
"total_estimated_overhead": "1gb",
|
||
"total_estimated_overhead_in_bytes": 1073741824
|
||
}
|
||
},
|
||
"jvm": {
|
||
"mem": {
|
||
"heap_max": "4gb",
|
||
"heap_max_in_bytes": 4294967296
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"USpTGYaBSIKbgSUJR2Z9lg"/\$node_name/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"name": "node-0"/"name": $body.$_path/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"total_estimated_overhead": "1gb"/"total_estimated_overhead": $body.$_path/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"total_estimated_overhead_in_bytes": 1073741824/"total_estimated_overhead_in_bytes": $body.$_path/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"heap_max": "4gb"/"heap_max": $body.$_path/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/"heap_max_in_bytes": 4294967296/"heap_max_in_bytes": $body.$_path/]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
===== Consider additional heap overheads
|
||
|
||
Apart from the two field overhead metrics above, you must additionally allow
|
||
enough heap for {es}'s baseline usage as well as your workload such as indexing,
|
||
searches and aggregations. 0.5GB of extra heap will suffice for many reasonable
|
||
workloads, and you may need even less if your workload is very light while heavy
|
||
workloads may require more.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
===== Example
|
||
|
||
As an example, consider the outputs above for a data node. The heap of the node
|
||
will need at least:
|
||
|
||
* 1 GB for the cluster state field information.
|
||
|
||
* 1 GB for the additional estimated heap overhead for the fields of the data node.
|
||
|
||
* 0.5 GB of extra heap for other overheads.
|
||
|
||
Since the node has a 4GB heap max size in the example, it is thus sufficient
|
||
for the total required heap of 2.5GB.
|
||
|
||
If the heap max size for a node is not sufficient, consider
|
||
<<avoid-unnecessary-fields,avoiding unnecessary fields>>,
|
||
or scaling up the cluster, or redistributing index shards.
|
||
|
||
Note that the above rules do not necessarily guarantee the performance of
|
||
searches or indexing involving a very high number of indices. You must also
|
||
ensure that your data nodes have adequate resources for your workload and
|
||
that your overall sharding strategy meets all your performance requirements.
|
||
See also <<single-thread-per-shard>> and <<each-shard-has-overhead>>.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[avoid-node-hotspots]]
|
||
==== Avoid node hotspots
|
||
|
||
If too many shards are allocated to a specific node, the node can become a
|
||
hotspot. For example, if a single node contains too many shards for an index
|
||
with a high indexing volume, the node is likely to have issues.
|
||
|
||
To prevent hotspots, use the
|
||
<<total-shards-per-node,`index.routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node`>> index
|
||
setting to explicitly limit the number of shards on a single node. You can
|
||
configure `index.routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node` using the
|
||
<<indices-update-settings,update index settings API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
PUT my-index-000001/_settings
|
||
{
|
||
"index" : {
|
||
"routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node" : 5
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[avoid-unnecessary-fields]]
|
||
==== Avoid unnecessary mapped fields
|
||
|
||
By default {es} <<dynamic-mapping,automatically creates a mapping>> for every
|
||
field in every document it indexes. Every mapped field corresponds to some data
|
||
structures on disk which are needed for efficient search, retrieval, and
|
||
aggregations on this field. Details about each mapped field are also held in
|
||
memory. In many cases this overhead is unnecessary because a field is not used
|
||
in any searches or aggregations. Use <<explicit-mapping>> instead of dynamic
|
||
mapping to avoid creating fields that are never used. If a collection of fields
|
||
are typically used together, consider using <<copy-to>> to consolidate them at
|
||
index time. If a field is only rarely used, it may be better to make it a
|
||
<<runtime,Runtime field>> instead.
|
||
|
||
You can get information about which fields are being used with the
|
||
<<field-usage-stats>> API, and you can analyze the disk usage of mapped fields
|
||
using the <<indices-disk-usage>> API. Note however that unnecessary mapped
|
||
fields also carry some memory overhead as well as their disk usage.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[reduce-cluster-shard-count]]
|
||
=== Reduce a cluster's shard count
|
||
|
||
If your cluster is already oversharded, you can use one or more of the following
|
||
methods to reduce its shard count.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[create-indices-that-cover-longer-time-periods]]
|
||
==== Create indices that cover longer time periods
|
||
|
||
If you use {ilm-init} and your retention policy allows it, avoid using a
|
||
`max_age` threshold for the rollover action. Instead, use
|
||
`max_primary_shard_size` to avoid creating empty indices or many small shards.
|
||
|
||
If your retention policy requires a `max_age` threshold, increase it to create
|
||
indices that cover longer time intervals. For example, instead of creating daily
|
||
indices, you can create indices on a weekly or monthly basis.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[delete-empty-indices]]
|
||
==== Delete empty or unneeded indices
|
||
|
||
If you're using {ilm-init} and roll over indices based on a `max_age` threshold,
|
||
you can inadvertently create indices with no documents. These empty indices
|
||
provide no benefit but still consume resources.
|
||
|
||
You can find these empty indices using the <<cat-count,cat count API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/count/my-index-000001?v=true
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
Once you have a list of empty indices, you can delete them using the
|
||
<<indices-delete-index,delete index API>>. You can also delete any other
|
||
unneeded indices.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
DELETE my-index-000001
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[force-merge-during-off-peak-hours]]
|
||
==== Force merge during off-peak hours
|
||
|
||
If you no longer write to an index, you can use the <<indices-forcemerge,force
|
||
merge API>> to <<index-modules-merge,merge>> smaller segments into larger ones.
|
||
This can reduce shard overhead and improve search speeds. However, force merges
|
||
are resource-intensive. If possible, run the force merge during off-peak hours.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
POST my-index-000001/_forcemerge
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shrink-existing-index-to-fewer-shards]]
|
||
==== Shrink an existing index to fewer shards
|
||
|
||
If you no longer write to an index, you can use the
|
||
<<indices-shrink-index,shrink index API>> to reduce its shard count.
|
||
|
||
{ilm-init} also has a <<ilm-shrink,shrink action>> for indices in the
|
||
warm phase.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[combine-smaller-indices]]
|
||
==== Combine smaller indices
|
||
|
||
You can also use the <<docs-reindex,reindex API>> to combine indices
|
||
with similar mappings into a single large index. For time series data, you could
|
||
reindex indices for short time periods into a new index covering a
|
||
longer period. For example, you could reindex daily indices from October with a
|
||
shared index pattern, such as `my-index-2099.10.11`, into a monthly
|
||
`my-index-2099.10` index. After the reindex, delete the smaller indices.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
POST _reindex
|
||
{
|
||
"source": {
|
||
"index": "my-index-2099.10.*"
|
||
},
|
||
"dest": {
|
||
"index": "my-index-2099.10"
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[troubleshoot-shard-related-errors]]
|
||
=== Troubleshoot shard-related errors
|
||
|
||
Here’s how to resolve common shard-related errors.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
==== this action would add [x] total shards, but this cluster currently has [y]/[z] maximum shards open;
|
||
|
||
The <<cluster-max-shards-per-node,`cluster.max_shards_per_node`>> cluster
|
||
setting limits the maximum number of open shards for a cluster. This error
|
||
indicates an action would exceed this limit.
|
||
|
||
If you're confident your changes won't destabilize the cluster, you can
|
||
temporarily increase the limit using the <<cluster-update-settings,cluster
|
||
update settings API>> and retry the action.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
PUT _cluster/settings
|
||
{
|
||
"persistent" : {
|
||
"cluster.max_shards_per_node": 1200
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
This increase should only be temporary. As a long-term solution, we recommend
|
||
you add nodes to the oversharded data tier or
|
||
<<reduce-cluster-shard-count,reduce your cluster's shard count>>. To get a
|
||
cluster's current shard count after making changes, use the
|
||
<<cluster-stats,cluster stats API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cluster/stats?filter_path=indices.shards.total
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
When a long-term solution is in place, we recommend you reset the
|
||
`cluster.max_shards_per_node` limit.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
PUT _cluster/settings
|
||
{
|
||
"persistent" : {
|
||
"cluster.max_shards_per_node": null
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|