Our maintain team trend to be conservative, especially on the basic software relative to performance. so I think it is rare possible to post it to the production recently. But I write a pretty convenient tools in Python for an A/B test. The tool can fake traffic of random expire-time and random length, and also can specify the weights of different expire-time and length, and lots of other functions. It is almost completed, and I can post a result next Monday.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > If you want? > > What would make you confident enough to try the branch in production? Or > do you rely on your other patches and that's not really possible? > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote: > > > I try to use real traffic of application to make a compare test, but > it seems that not all of guys use the cache-client with consistent hash in > > dev environment. The result is that the traffic is not distributed well > as I supposed. > > Should I fake the traffic and make a compare test instead of real > traffic? e.g., fake the random expire-time keys traffic to set and get for > > memcached. > > > > --------------- > > host mc56 installs the most update LRU-rework branch's memcached with > option likes "/usr/local/bin/memcached -u nobody -d -c 10240 -o > > lru_maintainer lru_crawler -m 64 -p 11811"; > > host mc57 install the version 1.4.20_7_gb118a6c's memcached, with option > likes "/usr/bin/memcached -u nobody -d -c 10240 -o tail_repair_time=7200 > > -m 64 -p 11811", > > > > I sum up the stats of all memcache instances on the host and make > followings analysis: > > > > Inline image 1 > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:58 AM, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > > Last update to the branch was 3 days ago. I'm not planning on > doing any > > more work on it at the moment, so people have a chance to test it. > > > > thanks! > > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote: > > > > > I compile directly using your branch on the test server, and > please tell me if it need update and re-compile. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, dormando <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > That sounds like an okay place to start. Can you please > make sure the > > > other dev server is running the very latest version of the > branch? A lot > > > changed since last friday... a few pretty bad bugs. > > > > > > Please use the startup options described in the middle of > the PR. > > > > > > If anyone's brave enough to try the latest branch on one > production > > > instance (if they have a low traffic one somewhere, > maybe?) that'd be > > > good. I ran the branch under a load tester for a few > hours, it passes > > > tests, etc. If I merge it, it'll just go into people's > productions without > > > ever having a production test first, so hopefully someone > can try it? > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote: > > > > > > > I have run it since last Friday, so far no crash. As I > have finished the haproxy works today, I will try a compare test for > > this > > > LRU works > > > > tomorrow as following: There are two servers(Centos > 5.8, 8cores, 8G memory) in the dev environment, Both of server run 32 > > > memcached > > > > instances(processes) with maxmum memory of 128M. One > server runs version 1.4.21, the other runs this branch. There are lots > > of > > > "pools" using these > > > > memcached server, and all of pools use tow memcached > instances on different server. The client of pools use Consistent Hash > > algorithm > > > to distribute > > > > keys to their 2 memcached instances. I will watch the > hit-rate and other performance using Cacti. > > > > I think it will work, but usually there is not much > traffic in our dev environment. Please tell me if any other advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015-01-08 4:21 GMT+08:00 dormando <[email protected]>: > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > To all three of you: Just run it anywhere you can > (but not more than one > > > > machine, yet?), with the options prescribed in the > PR. Ideally you have > > > > graphs of the hit ratio and maybe cache fullness > and can compare > > > > before/after. > > > > > > > > And let me know if it hangs or crashes, obviously. > If so a backtrace > > > > and/or coredump would be fantastic. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote: > > > > > > > > > I will deploy it to one of our test > environment on CentOS 5.8, for a comparison test with the 1.4.21, although > the > > > workloads is > > > > not as heavy as > > > > > product environment. Tell me if any I could help. > > > > > > > > > > 2015-01-07 23:30 GMT+08:00 Eric McConville < > [email protected]>: > > > > > Same here. Do you want any findings posted > to the mailing list, or the PU thread? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Ryan McCullagh < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm willing to help out in any way > possible. What can I do? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On > > > > > Behalf Of dormando > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3:52 AM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: memory efficiency / LRU refactor > branch > > > > > > > > > > Yo, > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/memcached/memcached/pull/97 > > > > > > > > > > Opening to a wider audience. I need some > folks willing to poke at it and see > > > > > if their workloads fair better or worse > with respect to hit ratios. > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the work remaining on my end > is more testing, and some TODO's > > > > > noted in the PR. The remaining work is > relatively small aside from the page > > > > > mover idea. It hasn't been crashing or > hanging in my testing so far, but > > > > > that might still happen. > > > > > > > > > > I can't/won't merge this until I get some > evidence that it's useful. > > > > > Hoping someone out there can lend a hand. > I don't know what the actual > > > > > impact would be, but for some workloads it > could be large. Even for folks > > > > > who have set all items to never expire, it > could still potentially improve > > > > > hit ratios by better protecting active > items. > > > > > > > > > > It will work best if you at least have a > mix of items with TTL's that expire > > > > > in reasonable amounts of time. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > -Dormando > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > > [email protected]. > > > > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > > [email protected]. > > > > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > > [email protected]. > > > > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > --- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to > the Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, send an email to [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an email to [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "memcached" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
