I will need to look at those further today. This weekend went a little
haywire for me. :)
On Feb 21, 2011 11:42 AM, "dormando" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Have you walked through those links I gave you? You haven't mentioned
> exactly what you're seeing and those links walk you through narrowing it
> down a lot as well as listing a lot of things to look for.
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Patrick Santora wrote:
>
>> Hrmm. Still having issues. Here is the latest stats dump. I also talked
with my IT person and he mentioned the following setup, which does
>> not look like an issue?
>> NIC SETTINGS
>> the servers should all be autonegotiating to 100/Full and we apply these
additional kernel tuning parameters
>> net.core.rmem_max = 16777216
>> net.core.wmem_max = 16777216
>> net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 16777216
>> net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 16777216
>>
>> LATEST STATS
>> STAT pid 1788
>> STAT uptime 44811
>> STAT time 1298311271
>> STAT version 1.4.5
>> STAT pointer_size 64
>> STAT rusage_user 178.875806
>> STAT rusage_system 763.939863
>> STAT curr_connections 811
>> STAT total_connections 2012
>> STAT connection_structures 813
>> STAT cmd_get 876886
>> STAT cmd_set 74747
>> STAT cmd_flush 0
>> STAT get_hits 858907
>> STAT get_misses 17979
>> STAT delete_misses 0
>> STAT delete_hits 2
>> STAT incr_misses 0
>> STAT incr_hits 0
>> STAT decr_misses 0
>> STAT decr_hits 0
>> STAT cas_misses 0
>> STAT cas_hits 0
>> STAT cas_badval 0
>> STAT auth_cmds 0
>> STAT auth_errors 0
>> STAT bytes_read 17426408671
>> STAT bytes_written 180479901035
>> STAT limit_maxbytes 536870912
>> STAT accepting_conns 1
>> STAT listen_disabled_num 0
>> STAT threads 4
>> STAT conn_yields 0
>> STAT bytes 3501518
>> STAT curr_items 3230
>> STAT total_items 74747
>> STAT evictions 0
>> STAT reclaimed 20950
>> END
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Patrick Santora <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> @Dustin
>> Thanks, I will be disabling them to see if that helps.
>>
>> -Pat
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Dustin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 21, 12:31 am, Patrick Santora <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Heh. I had a funny feeling that was going to be the answer. I was
curious
>> > mostly because the Binary mode seemed to do quite a deal of good for
>> > Facebook when it was used. I'm imagining that they cached images so
binary
>> > was a good idea, but for simple structures like json, it might not make
much
>> > sense. So thought I would get some opinions :).
>>
>> binary protocol doesn't make much of a difference wrt what you're
>> caching, but can help you optimize some access patterns with a
>> sufficiently smart client. If you're concerned that it may be making
>> things worse (it probably doesn't have a huge effect from what I'm
>> hearing here), you can just try disabling it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
