# Elasticsearch 1.1.1 going down with addition of new indices **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [March 22, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-1-1-1-going-down-with-addition-of-new-indices/125222 "2018-03-22T15:48:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ehteshaam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@Ehteshaam](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ehteshaam)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-1-1-1-going-down-with-addition-of-new-indices/125222/1 "2018-03-22T15:48:14Z")
We have 4 nodes with 16gigs. With addition of new indices we see OOM errors and nodes going down 1 by 1. I believe this is Gazillion shards problem. In search of evidence that supports it with details like how much overhead a single shard is taking up. Also if we can tweak heap, jvm, network, io, etc before adding one more node into cluster. Please suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-1-1-1-going-down-with-addition-of-new-indices/125222/2 "2018-03-22T16:04:38Z")
A lot of shards will surely not help, but you are also not able to benefit from off-heap memory in the form of doc\_values as you are on such an ancient version. I would recommend upgrading, at least to 1.7.6. ---
**Author:** ![Ehteshaam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@Ehteshaam](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Ehteshaam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 5:45am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-1-1-1-going-down-with-addition-of-new-indices/125222/3 "2018-03-23T05:45:05Z")
Thanks Christian for the reply. Can you please direct to some document which have more details on off-heap memory usage of doc\_values ? How to set it up? How much memory pressure will it take off of jvm? ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 6:16am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-1-1-1-going-down-with-addition-of-new-indices/125222/4 "2018-03-23T06:16:19Z")
It has been a long time since I looked for documentation around the introduction of doc\_values, as they are nowadays the norm. It has been available since version 1.0, but I recall performance was improved a lot late in the 1.x series, which allowed them to be made the default choice for a lot of field types in more recent versions. Have a look at the following old blog posts though: > **[Disk-Based Field Data a.k.a. Doc Values | Elastic](https://www.elastic.co/blog/disk-based-field-data-a-k-a-doc-values)** > > Elasticsearch is not just about full-text search, and many users are actually not using Elasticsearch for full-text search at all but for analytics though facets. This approach works well, but, as you... > **[Sizing Elasticsearch | Elastic](https://www.elastic.co/blog/found-sizing-elasticsearch#field-data-and-document-values)** > > We're often asked 'How big a cluster do I need?', and it's usually hard to be more specific than 'Well, it depends!'. There are so many variables, where knowledge about your application's specific workload and your performance expectations are just... It is impossible to estimate the benefit as it will depend a lot on the use case. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2018, 6:16am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-1-1-1-going-down-with-addition-of-new-indices/125222/5 "2018-04-20T06:16:27Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.