Run two, and keep them running all the time, so you see log from before/after. You can also enable the "debug" switch and have it log everything.
So yeah. run one on the client and one on an idle machine elsewhere. On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Patrick Santora wrote: > > 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. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >
