Barry, Demitrious - did you ever find a solution here?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Barry Abrahamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <[email protected]>, >> Barry Abraham >> son writes: >> >>>> This week we upgraded to 2.0.2 and are using varnish's back end & >>>> director configuration for the same work. What we are seeing is >>>> that >>>> 2.0.2 holds about 60% of the objects in the same amount of cache >>>> space >>>> as 1.1.2 did (we tried tcmalloc, jemalloc, and mmap.) >> >> Your description does not make it obvious to me what is causing this >> but one candidate could be the stored hash-string, in particular if >> your URLS are long. >> >> The new purge code (likely included in 2.0.3, but already available >> in -trunk) dispenses with the need to store the hash-string so theory >> could be tested. > > Upgraded to trunk, didn't help. > > -- > Barry Abrahamson | Systems Wrangler | Automattic > Blog: http://barry.wordpress.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-misc mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc > _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
