Oh, so this is amazon elasticache?
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020, Shweta Agrawal wrote:
> We use aws for deployment and don't have that information. What particularly
> looks odd in settings?
>
> On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 8:10:04 AM UTC+5:30, Dormando wrote:
> what're your start arguments? the settings look a little odd. ie; the
> full
> commandline (censoring anything important) that you used to start
> memcached
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020, Shweta Agrawal wrote:
>
> > Sorry. Here it is.
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 12:38:38 AM UTC+5:30, Dormando wrote:
> > 'stats settings' file is empty
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020, Shweta Agrawal wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dormando,
> > > Got the stats for production. Please find attached files for
> stats settings. stats items, stats, stats slabs. Summary for all slabs.
> > >
> > > Other details that might help:
> > > * TTL is two days or more.
> > > * Key length is in the range of 40-80 bytes.
> > > Below are the parameters that we plan to change from the
> current settings:
> > > 1. slab_automove : from 0 to 1
> > > 2. hash_algorithm: from jenkins to murmur
> > > 3. chunk_size: from 48 to 297 (as we don't have data of size
> less than that)
> > > 4. growth_factor: 1.25 to 1.20 ( Can reducing this more
> help? Do more slab classes affect performance?)
> > > 5. max_item_size : from 4MB to 1MB (as our data will never
> be more than 1MB large)
> > > Please let me know if different values for above paramters
> can be more beneficial.
> > > Are there any other parameters which we should consider to
> change or set?
> > >
> > > Also below are the calculations used for columns in the
> summary shared. Can you please confirm if calculations are fine.
> > > 1) Total_Mem = total_pages*page_size --> total memory
> > > 2) Strg_ovrHd = (mem_requested/(used_chunks*chunk_size)) *
> 100 --> storage overhead
> > > 3) Free Memory = free_chunks * chunk_size ---> free memory
> > > 4) To Store = mem_requested --> actual memory
> requested for storing data
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time and efforts in explaining concepts.
> > > Shweta
> > >
> > > > > the rest is free memory, which should be
> measured separately.
> > > > free memory for a class will be : (free_chunks
> * chunk_size)
> > > > And total memory reserved by a class will be :
> (total_pages*page_size)
> > > >
> > > > > If you're getting evictions in class A but
> there's too much free memory in classes C, D, etc
> > > > > then you have a balance issue. for example.
> An efficiency stat which just
> > > > > adds up the total pages doesn't tell you what
> to do with it.
> > > > I see. Got your point.Storage overhead can help
> in deciding the chunk_size and growth_factor. Let me add
> storage-overhead and
> > > free memory as well for
> > > > calculation.
> > >
> > > Most people don't have to worry about
> growth_factor very much. Especially
> > > since the large item code was added, but it has
> its own caveats. Growth
> > > factor is only typically useful if you have
> _very_ statically sized
> > > objects.
> > >
> > > > One curious question: If we have an item of
> 500Bytes and there is free memory only in class A(chunk_size: 100Bytes).
> Do cache
> > > evict items from class with
> > > > largeer chunk_size or use multiple chunks from
> class A?
> > >
> > > No, it will evict an item matching the 500 byte
> chunk size, and not touch
> > > A. This is where the memory balancer comes in; it
> will move pages of
> > > memory between slab classes to keep the tail age
> roughly the same between
> > > classes. It does this slowly.
> > >
> > > > Example:
> > > > In below scenario, when we try to store item
> with 3MB, even when there was memory in class with smaller chunk_size, it
> evicts
> > > items from 512K class and
> > > > other memory is blocked by smaller slabs.
> > >
> > > Large (> 512KB) items are an exception. It will
> try to evict from the
> > > "large item" bucket, which is 512kb. It will try
> to do this up to a few
> > > times, trying to free up enough memory to make
> space for the large item.
> > >
> > > So to make space for a 3MB item, if the tail item
> is 5MB in size or 1MB in
> > > size, they will still be evicted. If the tail age
> is low compared to all
> > > other classes, the memory balancer will
> eventually move more pages into
> > > the 512K slab class.
> > >
> > > If you tend to store a lot of very large items,
> it works better if the
> > > instances are larger.
> > >
> > > Memcached is more optimized for performance with
> small items. if you try
> > > to store a small item, it will evict exactly one
> item to make space.
> > > However, for very large items (1MB+), the time it
> takes to read the data
> > > from the network is so large that we can afford
> to do extra processing.
> > >
> > > > 3Mb_items_eviction.png
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Shweta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 1:13:19 AM UTC+5:30,
> Dormando wrote:
> > > > (memory_requested / (chunk_size *
> chunk_used)) * 100
> > > >
> > > > is roughly the storage overhead of memory
> used in the system. the rest is
> > > > free memory, which should be measured
> separately. If you're getting
> > > > evictions in class A but there's too much
> free memory in classes C, D, etc
> > > > then you have a balance issue. for
> example. An efficiency stat which just
> > > > adds up the total pages doesn't tell you
> what to do with it.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2020, Shweta Agrawal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I'll need the raw output from "stats
> items" and "stats slabs". I don't
> > > > > > think that efficiency column is very
> helpful. ohkay no worries. I can get by Tuesday and will share.
> > > > >
> > > > > Efficiency for each slab is calcuated
> as
> > > > > (("stats slabs" -> memory_requested) /
> (("stats slabs" -> total_pages) * page_size)) * 100
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Attaching script which has calculations
> for the same. The script is from memcahe repo with additional
> calculation for
> > > efficiency.
> > > > > Will it be possible for you to verify
> if the efficiency calculation is correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Shweta
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 1:08:23 PM
> UTC+5:30, Dormando wrote:
> > > > > ah okay.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll need the raw output from
> "stats items" and "stats slabs". I don't
> > > > > think that efficiency column is
> very helpful.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, Shweta
> Agrawal wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at
> 9:41:49 AM UTC+5:30, Dormando wrote:
> > > > > > No attachment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020,
> Shweta Agrawal wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wooo...so quick. :):)
> > > > > > > > Correct, close. It
> actually uses more like 3 512k chunks and then one
> > > > > > > > smaller chunk from a
> different class to fit exactly 1.6MB.
> > > > > > > I see.Got it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Can you share
> snapshots from "stats items" and "stats slabs" for one of
> > > > > > > these instances?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently I have
> summary of it, sharing the same below. I can get snapshot by Tuesday as need
> to
> > request
> > > for it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pages have value from
> total_pages from stats slab for each slab
> > > > > > > item_size have value
> from chunk_size from stats slab for each slab
> > > > > > > Used memory is
> calculated as pages*page size ---> This has to corrected now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > prod_stats.png
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 90%+ are perfectly
> doable. You probably need to look a bit more closely
> > > > > > > > into why you're not
> getting the efficiency you expect. The detailed stats
> > > > > > > > output should point
> to why. I can help with that if it's confusing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Great. Will surely ask
> for your input whenever I have question. It is really kind of you to
> offer
> > help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Either the slab
> rebalancer isn't keeping up or you actually do have 39GB
> > > > > > > > of data and your
> expecations are a bit off. This will also depending on
> > > > > > > > the TTL's you're
> setting and how often/quickly your items change size.
> > > > > > > > Also things like your
> serialization method / compression / key length vs
> > > > > > > > data length / etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have much less data
> than 39 GB. As after facing evictions, it has been always kept higher
> than
> > > expected data-size.
> > > > > > > TTL is two days or
> more.
> > > > > > > From my observation
> items size(data-length) is in the range of 300Bytes to 500K after
> compression.
> > > > > > > Key length is in the
> range of 40-80 bytes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > Shweta
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 4,
> 2020 at 8:38:31 AM UTC+5:30, Dormando wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Putting my
> understanding to re-confirm:
> > > > > > > > 1) Page size
> will always be 1MB and we cannot change it.Moreover, it's not required to
> be
> > > changed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Correct.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) We can store
> items larger than 1MB and it is done by combining chunks together.
> (example:
> > > let's say item size:
> > > > ~1.6MB -->
> > > > > 4 slab
> > > > > > > chunks(512k slab)
> from
> > > > > > > > 2 pages will be
> used)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Correct, close.
> It actually uses more like 3 512k chunks and then one
> > > > > > > smaller chunk
> from a different class to fit exactly 1.6MB.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We use memcache
> in production and in past we saw evictions even when free memory was
> present.
> > > Also currently we use
> > > > cluster
> > > > > with
> > > > > > 39GB RAM in
> > > > > > > total to
> > > > > > > > cache data even
> when data size we expect is ~15GB to avoid eviction of active items.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you share
> snapshots from "stats items" and "stats slabs" for one of
> > > > > > > these instances?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But as our data
> varies in size, it is possible to avoid evictions by tuning
> parameters:
> > > chunk_size, growth_factor,
> > > > > slab_automove.
> > > > > > Also I
> > > > > > > believe memcache
> > > > > > > > is efficient
> and we can reduce cost by reducing memory size for cluster.
> > > > > > > > So I am trying
> to find the best possible memory size and parameters we can have.So
> want to be
> > > clear with my
> > > > understanding
> > > > > and
> > > > > > calculations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So while trying
> different parameters and putting all calculations, I observed that
> total_pages
> > *
> > > item_size_max >
> > > > physical
> > > > > memory for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > machine. And from
> > > > > > > > all blogs,and
> docs it didnot match my understanding. But it's clear now. Thanks to
> you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One last
> question: From my trials I find that we can achieve ~90% storage efficiency
> with
> > > memcache. (i.e we need
> > > > 10MB of
> > > > > physical
> > > > > > memory to
> > > > > > > store 9MB of
> > > > > > > > data. Do you
> recommend any idle memory-size interms of percentage of expected
> data-size?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 90%+ are
> perfectly doable. You probably need to look a bit more closely
> > > > > > > into why you're
> not getting the efficiency you expect. The detailed stats
> > > > > > > output should
> point to why. I can help with that if it's confusing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Either the slab
> rebalancer isn't keeping up or you actually do have 39GB
> > > > > > > of data and your
> expecations are a bit off. This will also depending on
> > > > > > > the TTL's you're
> setting and how often/quickly your items change size.
> > > > > > > Also things like
> your serialization method / compression / key length vs
> > > > > > > data length / etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Dormando
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Saturday,
> July 4, 2020 at 12:23:09 AM UTC+5:30, Dormando wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks
> like I never updated the manpage. In the past the item size max was
> > > > > > > > achieved
> by changing the slab page size, but that hasn't been true for a
> > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From
> ./memcached -h:
> > > > > > > > -m,
> --memory-limit=<num> item memory in megabytes (default: 64)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ... -m
> just means the memory limit in megabytes, abstract from the page
> > > > > > > > size. I
> think that was always true.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In any
> recentish version, any item larger than half a page size (512k) is
> > > > > > > > created
> by stitching page chunks together. This prevents waste when an
> > > > > > > > item
> would be more than half a page size.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is there
> a problem you're trying to track down?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll
> update the manpage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 3
> Jul 2020, Shweta Agrawal wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > Sorry
> if I am repeating the question, I searched the list but could not find
> definite
> > > answer. So posting it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> Memcache version: 1.5.10
> > > > > > > > > I have
> started memcahce with option: -I 4m (setting maximum item size to
> 4MB).Verified
> > > it is set by
> > > > command stats
> > > > > settings ,
> > > > > > I can
> > > > > > > see STAT
> > > > > > > >
> item_size_max
> > > > > > > > > 4194304.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> Documentation from git repository here stats that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -I,
> --max-item-size=<size>
> > > > > > > > >
> Override the default size of each slab page. The default size is 1mb. Default
> > > > > > > > > value
> for this parameter is 1m, minimum is 1k, max is 1G (1024 * 1024 * 1024).
> > > > > > > > >
> Adjusting this value changes the item size limit.
> > > > > > > > > My
> understanding from documentation is this option will allow to save items
> with size
> > > till 4MB and the page
> > > > size for
> > > > > each
> > > > > > slab will
> > > > > > > be 4MB
> > > > > > > > (as I set
> it as
> > > > > > > > > -I 4m).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am
> able to save items till 4MB but the page-size is still 1MB.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -m
> memory size is default 64MB.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> Calculation:
> > > > > > > > > ->
> Calculated total pages used from stats slabs output parameter total_pages =
> 64 (If
> > > page size is 4MB then
> > > > total
> > > > > pages
> > > > > > should not
> > > > > > > be more
> > > > > > > > than 16.
> Also
> > > > > > > > > when I
> store 8 items of ~3MB it uses 25 pages but if page size is 4MB, it
> should use 8
> > > pages right.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you
> please help me in understanding the behaviour?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> Attached files with details for output of command stats settings and stats
> slabs.
> > > > > > > > > Below
> is the summarized view of the distribution.
> > > > > > > > > First
> added items with variable sizes, then then added items with 3MB and
> above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> data_distribution.png
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please
> let me know in case more details are required or question is not clear.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank
> You,
> > > > > > > > > Shweta
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > > > > To view
> this discussion on the web visit
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/2b640e1f-9f59-4432-a930-d830cbe8566do%40googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > > > To view this
> discussion on the web visit
> > > > > > >
> > >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/586aad58-c6fb-4ed8-89ce-6b005d59ba12o%40googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > prod_stats.png
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > 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
> > > memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > > To view this discussion
> on the web visit
> > > > > >
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/8d011c1a-deec-463f-a17e-4e9908d97bdfo%40googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 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
> memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > To view this discussion on the
> web visit
> > > > >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/f0c2bfe1-d65d-4b62-9a87-68fc42446c3do%40googlegroups.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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 memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > > >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/bcd4da5a-ae8e-470f-beb9-2705c0f0202ao%40googlegroups.com.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > 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 memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/5e76fa4f-7e06-468a-8b10-d99ab89d7ec2o%40googlegroups.com.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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 memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/71fd5680-7bd2-473b-9944-6cda8271ad5fo%40googlegroups.com.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---
> > 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 memc...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/372169f1-2a2e-4163-bf48-ca8176e76443o%40googlegroups.com.
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> ---
> 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 memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/d89d1650-801b-4632-8a5d-3a29b98c161fo%40googlegroups.com.
>
>
--
---
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 memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/alpine.DEB.2.21.2007072105040.18887%40dskull.
