still running ok? > On Aug 12, 2016, at 1:10 PM, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok. So I think I can narrow the change to explicitly set -f 1.08 if the > slab_chunk_max is actually 16k... instead of just if `-o modern` is on... > I was careful about filling out a lot of the new values after all of the > parsing is done but missed some spots. > > Thanks for trying it out. I'll wait a few hours in case you find anything > else.. or I think of anything else. > > Much appreciated. > >> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, [email protected] wrote: >> >> That one seems to work okay ― again, I've gotten past 2GB and the hit-rate >> is within a few points of where it belongs. I don't have numbers for the >> same situation on .29 but >> IIRC it was very bad. So I guess .30 is an improvement there. >> >> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:34:00 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >> Also, just for completeness: >> >> Does: >> >> `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o modern` >> >> also fail under .30? (without the slab_chunk_max change) >> >>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, dormando wrote: >>> >>> FML. >>> >>> Please let me know how it goes. I'm going to take a hard look at this and >>> see about another bugfix release... there're a couple things I forgot from >>> .30 anyway. >>> >>> Your information will be very helpful though. Thanks again for testing it. >>> All of my testing recently was with explicit configuration options, so I >>> didn't notice the glitch with -o modern :( >>> >>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> It will take a while to fill up entirely, but I passed 2GB with 0 >>>> evictions, so it looks like that probably does the job. >>>> >>>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >>>> Ahhhh crap, I think I see it. >>>> >>>> Can you add: `-f 1.25` *after* the -o stuff? >>>> >>>> like this: >>>> >>>> `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o modern,slab_chunk_max=1048576 -f 1.25` >>>> >>>> And test that out, please? I might have to back out some >>>> over-aggressive >>>> switches... and I keep thinking of making this particular problem >>>> (which >>>> I'll talk about if confirmed) a startup error :( >>>> >>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> > Here you go. >>>> > Yes, 1.4.25 is running with `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o >> >> maxconns_fast,hash_algorithm=murmur3,lru_maintainer,lru_crawler,slab_reassign,slab_automove`. >>>> > 1.4.30 is running with `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o >>>> modern,slab_chunk_max=1048576`. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >>>> > Hey, >>>> > >>>> > any chance I could see `stats slabs` output as well? a lot >>>> of the data's >>>> > in there. Need all three: stats, stats items, stats slabs >>>> > >>>> > Also, did you try 1.4.30 with `-o slab_chunk_max=1048576` as >>>> well? >>>> > >>>> > thanks >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, [email protected] wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Thanks! That's an improvement. It's still worse than older >>>> versions, but it's better than 1.4.29. This time it made it up to about >>>> 1.75GB/10GB >> used >>>> before it >>>> > started evicting; >>>> > > I left it running for another 8 hours and it got up to >>>> 2GB, but no higher. >>>> > > Here's some stats output from the old and new versions, in >>>> case you can puzzle anything out of it. >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks, >>>> > > >>>> > > Andrew >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-4, Dormando >>>> wrote: >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki/ReleaseNotes1430 >>>> > > >>>> > > Can you please try this? And let me know how it goes >>>> either way :) >>>> > > >>>> > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, dormando wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > Hey, >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Thanks and sorry about that. I just found a bug >>>> this week where the new >>>> > > > code is over-allocating (though 30MB out of 10G >>>> limit seems odd?) >>>> > > > >>>> > > > ie: with -I 2m, it would allocate 2 megabytes of >>>> memory and then only use >>>> > > > up to 1mb of it. A one-line fix for a missed >>>> variable conversion. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Will likely do a bugfix release later tonight with >>>> that and a few other >>>> > > > things. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Will take a look at your data in hopes it's the >>>> same issue at least, >>>> > > > thanks! >>>> > > > >>>> > > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, [email protected] wrote: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > I decided to give this a try on a production >>>> setup that has a very bimodal size distribution (about a 50/50 split of >>>> 10k-100k values >> and 1M-10M >>>> values) >>>> > and >>>> > > lots of writes, >>>> > > > > where we've been running with "-I 10m -m 10240" >>>> for a while. It didn't go so great. Almost immediately there were lots and >>>> lots of >> evictions, >>>> even >>>> > though the >>>> > > used memory was >>>> > > > > only about 30MB of the 10GB limit, and the >>>> number of active keys grew very slowly. "-o slab_chunk_max=1048576" may >>>> have had some >> effect, but it >>>> didn't >>>> > really >>>> > > seem like it. >>>> > > > > Setting "slabs automove 2" (usually 1) reduced >>>> evictions about 50% but it still wasn't enough to get acceptable >>>> performance. >>>> > > > > I've rolled back to 1.4.25 for the moment, but >>>> I'm attaching a log with "stats" and "stats items" from yesterday. "stats >>>> sizes" >> wasn't >>>> available due to >>>> > -C, and >>>> > > the log isn't >>>> > > > > from as long after startup as I would like, but >>>> it's what I got, sorry. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Let me know if there's anything else I can do to >>>> help. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Thanks, >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Andrew >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:08:49 PM UTC-4, >>>> Dormando wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki/ReleaseNotes1429 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > enjoy. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > -- >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > --- >>>> > > > > 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. > > -- > > --- > 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.
