On Dec 10, 2007, at 17:17, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?
ISO-8859-1?Q?Ei
rik_=D8verby?= writes:
Hi,
is this still a problem?
Yes, sendfile is not currently usable because it does not tell
us when it is _really_ done with the data we send, so it can
run afoul of our reuse of the memory for short lived objects.
Thanks. What's the likelihood that the error I saw today is in fact
caused by this weakness in the sendfile implementation, and that
Varnish has triggered it? In other words; now that I disabled it as
suggested, how surprised should I be to see a similiar error again?
/Eirik
I have not spent any time on it, as the performance hit from
using writev(2) seems to be trivial if one has plenty of RAM
and because the real fix for the sendfile issue is likely
to mean a redefinition of the sendfile system call.
Poul-Henning
I've nailed three different operating system kernels as having
sendfile(2) issues today, so I would advice all of you to
disable sendfile to avoid the various problems we've seen.
The easiest way is to specify
-p sendfile_threshold=-1
to varnishd, or by using the CLI:
param.set sendfile_threshold -1
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
incompetence.
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
