On 23-1-2010 20:57, Michael Fischer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Angelo Höngens <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > (second try, I found out I was subscribed using a wrong email address) > > Hey, > > I am having some problems with Varnish. Unfortunately (depends on how > you look at it), I had to replace our Squid cluster with Varnish in a > day.. And now, we are finding out we're having some issues with it, > sometimes Varnish just stops working. > > We have 4 balancers, each running FreeBSD 7.2 with 'device carp' > compiled in. I haven't dared upgrade to 8.0 yet, because I had problems > on my testmachine earlier with ipv6 and carp interfaces on 8.0. > > [ang...@nmt-nlb-06 ~]$ uname -a > FreeBSD nmt-nlb-06.netmatchcolo1.local 7.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE > #0: Mon Jun 15 19:25:03 CEST 2009 > [email protected]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/NMT-NLB-06 > amd64 > > Here's an example of a varnishd crashing, this is in /var/log/messages: > > Jan 23 09:49:39 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (47479) not responding > to ping, killing it. > Jan 23 10:49:43 nmt-nlb-06 kernel: pid 47479 (varnishd), uid 80: exited > on signal 3 > Jan 23 09:49:43 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (47479) not responding > to ping, killing it. > Jan 23 09:49:43 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (47479) not responding > to ping, killing it. > Jan 23 09:49:43 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: child (54810) Started > Jan 23 09:49:48 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Pushing vcls failed: CLI > communication error > Jan 23 09:49:48 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (54810) said Closed > fds: 4 5 6 7 11 12 14 15 > Jan 23 09:49:48 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (54810) said Child > starts > Jan 23 09:51:15 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (54810) said managed > to mmap 2319266349056 bytes of 2319266349056 > Jan 23 09:51:15 nmt-nlb-06 varnishd[47478]: Child (54810) said Ready > > Does anyone know what could cause this? > > > What is thread_pool_max set to? Have you tried lowering it? We have > found that on systems with very high cache-hit ratios, 16 threads per > CPU is the sweet spot to avoid context-switch saturation.
[ang...@nmt-nlb-03 ~]$ varnishadm -T localhost:81 param.show| grep thread_pool thread_pool_add_delay 20 [milliseconds] thread_pool_add_threshold 2 [requests] thread_pool_fail_delay 200 [milliseconds] thread_pool_max 500 [threads] thread_pool_min 5 [threads] thread_pool_purge_delay 1000 [milliseconds] thread_pool_timeout 300 [seconds] thread_pools 2 [pools] Thread_pool_max is set to 500 threads.. But I just increased it to 4000 (as per http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/Performance), as 'top' shows me it's using around 480~490 threads now.. You suggest lowering it, what would be the effect of that? I would think it would run out of threads or something? Well, we'll see what happens with the increased threads.. I've also just increased thread_pools from 2 to 4.. (4 cores). -- With kind regards, Angelo Höngens systems administrator MCSE on Windows 2003 MCSE on Windows 2000 MS Small Business Specialist ------------------------------------------ NetMatch tourism internet software solutions Ringbaan Oost 2b 5013 CA Tilburg +31 (0)13 5811088 +31 (0)13 5821239 [email protected] www.netmatch.nl ------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
