On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:46:58AM +0200, Lazy wrote: > 2009/7/14 Kristian Lyngstol <[email protected]>: > > 6000 threads is too much. Since it's per pool, it'll cause up to 12 000 > > threads to start. That's not likely to go over all that well. If you have > > that sort of traffic, you need to scale out. Also, 10 thread minimum is > > pretty low. > > > > I typically recommend setting the minimum thread count to what you expect > > your normal traffic to be at peak hours. It's probably a dedicated > > machines, and idle threads have barely any overhead, while creating new > > threads can take some time. > > at first i had 3000 threads set and varnish ocassionly droped > connections, so I doubled it > > so what whould be a recomended values ? > will -w 1024,1024 -p thread_pools=6 whould be ok ?
6 thread pools is overkill. And the number of threads is multiplied with the thread pools, so in this case you're essentially writing -w 6k,6k... I'd advice something like -w 200,1200 -p thread_pools=2 to begin with. Just watch the overflows in varnishstat (it'll increase a good bit during startup since it takes a little time to create the 400 threads). It should stay fairly static after startup. > the site is usually not so busy, but it has sometimes spikes of static > traffic (about 50Mbps) that's why i upped the thread limit, 3000 was > to low I seriously doubt 3k was too low. More likely, the min threads was hurting you. Three thousand threads is quite a bit. Remember that these are actual requests being handled, not keep-alive connections and the like. > is it safe to change thread_pools on runtime ? Safe; I'd assume so. But I don't know if it actually takes effect. I've yet to see any good reason to change it from the default. -- Kristian Lyngstøl Redpill Linpro AS Tlf: +47 21544179 Mob: +47 99014497
pgpGG7y6WlKUh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
