I will jump in and ask if TSMalloc does more than what it is reported on the documentation ( http://trafficserver.readthedocs.org/en/latest/reference/api/TSmalloc.en.html). I've also seen there are configuration options to use jemalloc and tcmalloc (I assume, they are hooked up into TSMalloc).
The reason I am interested on that is that so far I've been avoiding TSMalloc in favor of standard C++ new/delete allocators. So if TSMalloc actually might have some (good) impact in performance it might be interesting into providing a TS specific C++ allocator using them. What you guys suggest? thanks, On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:11 PM, James Peach <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:57 PM, Adam W. Dace <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Also, once you've gotten past your immediate problem and are looking to > deploy my Wiki page may help: > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/WebProxyCacheTuning > >> > >> To call it "best practices" would be a bit much, but I spent quite a > bit of time simply tuning ATS for my own uses. > >> The page is finally stable(i.e. I'm done now) and I'm quite pleased. > I'm hoping once the next release is out the door > >> I can start bugging the commiters to take a look and review it. > > > > Yes, that's a nice piece of work! The effect > ofproxy.config.system.mmap_max is interesting; were you ble to test with > tcmalloc? > > Yeah, I’m very curious and concerned about this at the same time. The > background is that we used to do millions of mmap areas for the RAM cache. > As far as I can tell, this is no longer true (but please correct me if I’m > wrong). As such, we were even thinking of removing this configuration > option entirely, see > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-1822 > > > Curious, when you increased this, did you also increase the corresponding > sysctl? That would be > > kernel.shmall > > > Meaning, unless you increased this setting above the default, increasing > the ATS setting above that ought to have no impact. Also, on a box we run > with 100GB of RAM cache, the total number of pages mmap’ed is only about > 500, a far cry from where we’d need to increase > proxy.config.system.mmap_max. The default for this setting is 2MB, but the > system default is 64KB. > > Finally, why this setting would affect disk I/O is a conundrum. As far as > I know, our main mmap usage is for the RAM cache. > > James, you got any brilliant thoughts / ideas on why this is ? We should > perhaps test one of our prod boxes with mmap_max set to something much > smaller (e.g. 64k). > > — Leif > > -- Daniel Morilha ([email protected])
