Yeah I looked into that one. I have it in my back pocket just in case.
Unless im told I should use that over spymemcached.
On Feb 21, 2011 7:49 PM, "boyan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You may want to try xmecached ,here is a benchmark
> http://xmemcached.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/benchmark/benchmark.html
>
> 2011/2/22 Patrick Santora <[email protected]>
>
>> Yeah. I will run it the next time the issue comes up. Does it matter if I
>> run the tester on the same box the clients on? It should not matter but
>> thought ii would ask.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> On Feb 21, 2011 6:25 PM, "dormando" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Have you been running the connection tester tool while observing the
>> > client slowdown?
>> >
>> > The tool is there so you can rule if your client is an issue or not,
ie;
>> > if the tool never sees a blip but all/most/some of your clients are
>> seeing
>> > blips, it's the client's fault. If the tool sees a blip, you can see
>> > exactly where it's getting hung up and further narrow it down.
>> >
>> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Patrick Santora wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Its just strange. Memcaced with verbose logging looks ok but the
client
>> machines just take forever to get data. Like in the stats I don't
>> >> see anything out of the ordinary. The nic settings look ok too. Quite
>> frustrating...
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 21, 2011 11:51 AM, "Patrick Santora" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> name: 庄晓丹(伯岩)
> email: [email protected]
> [email protected]
> work: http://www.taobao.com
> twitter: @killme2008
> Blog: http://www.blogjava.net/killme2008
>
> 淘宝（中国）软件有限公司 / 新业务和开发平台 / Java中间件
