On 28/08/14 11:03, Martin Blix Grydeland wrote: > Having a nanny thread for this part is in my opinion too much complexity for > little gain.
I should have mentioned this in my first reply: The main benefit I'd see is that currently closing BE conns depends on backend requests being issued, so for instance no close will happen on a sick backends. Despite the fact that I never experienced any real issues due to this, I really don't like the fact that I have seen hundreds or even thousands of tcp conns in CLOSE_WAIT and this has raised questions and serious worries of sysadmins we work with. At least this is a real waste of file descriptors, which becomes particularly apparent when migrating to different backends (without restarting varnish). I have not looked at the locking complexity question, but as we have one health check thread per backend anyway, I'd be optimistic that the overhead could be kept low to begin with. Nils _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
