On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 08:11:29PM -0700, Hank A. Paulson wrote: > On 9/17/09 3:18 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >Hi Marc, > > > >On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:49:44AM -0400, Marc wrote: > >>I didn't specify a TARGET option. This was before the Makefile was > >>changed > >>to prevent that mistake. > > > >this should not cause an issue either. Can you check if the CPU is > >spent in user or system ? User could mean that you have a lot of > >ACLs or regex. System could imply other issues (conntrack, poor > >network driver, ...). If you observe almost 100% user, it would > >mean you encountered a bug causing haproxy to loop at some point, > >for instance trying to process an event which has expired, or > >something stupid like that. In such a case, the issue would > >continue even if you stop the load (eg: if you would unplug the > >wire for several seconds). > > > >2800 reqs/s is not much at all. My pentium-M laptop does 4000 > >(or maybe 6000, I have a doubt now) on low-power mode at 650 MHz. > >However, I see that you have an old 2.6.18 kernel, which contains > >the old stupid O(1) scheduler as well as strange artefacts in CPU > >usage measurement (you could see a sudden 100% wall when reaching > >50%, as well as a sinusoidal load between 0 and 100% without > >changing the workload at all). So I would not completely rule out > >that possibility either. > > > >Willy > > RedHat and CentOS have brainwashed everyone into think old Fedora is better > than new Fedora. I just get tired of hearing people parrot the myth that > CentOS is "more stable" than Fedora. CentOS is old Fedora, no secret > stability sauce added in by the CentOS people AFAIK.
Well, I'm sorry, I don't see the relation between my point above and yours. BTW, centos is not fedora, it's just a rebranded RHEL, both of which are built upon a given fedora. But that has absolutely no relation with the issues above. Willy
