You can cut it pretty close on the memory if you are using the box just for
varnish - 400,178,190 connections with just 735 MB of 11996 MB memory free :)
[r...@varn198 ~]# varnishstat -1 | egrep "n_object|client_conn"
client_conn 400178190 68.82 Client connections accepted
n_object 345931 . N struct object
n_objecthead 345933 . N struct objecthead
[r...@varn198 ~]# fgrep malloc /etc/sysconfig/varnish
-s malloc,11100M \
[r...@varn198 ~]# free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 11996 11727 269 0 243 223
-/+ buffers/cache: 11260 735
Swap: 0 0 0
[r...@varn198 ~]# uname -a
Linux varn198 2.6.32.10-90.fc12.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Mar 23 09:47:08 UTC 2010
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[r...@varn198 ~]# w
00:20:33 up 67 days, 7:23, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
On 6/9/10 2:13 AM, Alex F wrote:
I issued a fresh free -m so that's why I said 1.6 free in my last mail:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3950 3916 33 0 175 1450
-/+ buffers/cache: 2290 1659
Swap: 3999 0 3999
By "varnish log file" do you mean the .bin?
I now see that the most active partition with many HDD writes is /var.
So I think it has something to do with /var/lib/varnish given the fact
that my websites are located in /usr.
Also, can anyone explain to me if there is any relation between virtual
memory allocated to varnish and the amount it uses for caching objects?
As a side note, I use munin for monitoring, and since I installed the
latest version yesterday, the Memory Usage graphic shows that swap is
not being used at all, compared to constant 1GB of swap used by the
2.0.5 varnish version. Screenshot: http://i48.tinypic.com/66f7us.png
On 9.6.2010 11:28, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
You have about 2G of buffer cache, so no, you're not nearly out of
memory. In general, if you're seeing I/O problems, you should start by
putting the varnish log file (which usually lives in /var/lib/varnish)
on a tmpfs, to prevent Linux from writing that to disk.
Given you're using a 2G storage file on a 4G machine, you probably also
want to use -s malloc rather than -s file
Indeed, it is a web portal. I cache only
(txt|ico|png|jpeg|jpg|gif|tiff|js|css).
On 9.6.2010 11:18, Per Buer wrote:
You're right. Varnish would only have 1GB of memory to store objects.
Linux doesn't really do paging very well so your wise to stay within
the boundaries of physical memory.
This might not be so bad if your backend if somewhat snappy. If your
web site is news or portal like most of the 'hot' content will be the
content linked from the front page + related content. In most cases a
web site won't have more than 100MB of 'hot' content and such 1GB of
cache will go a really long way.
Per.
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
