Alright, I'll try 256kb and see how it goes. I'm doing it with a config
param to varnishd, which unfortunately makes it still use 10mb stacks
for the other 6 threads it's running. I wonder if I should use ulimit
in the init script to avoid this and save 60mb...
Thanks,
Chris
On 2010/07/28 01:29, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:02:50 +0200, Chris Hecker <[email protected]> wrote:
[stack size] I've seen people talking about 256kb, but then the docs
are pretty sketchy on whether it's a good idea to change it at all,
Any advice?
We're running several varnish instances.
All of them x86-64 though, so YMMV.
For the busiest machines, stack size has been set to 256kb, by putting
'ulimit -s 256' in the init script.
IIRC, we started doing this because we saw increases in the
'thread_limited'
counter.
We saw that varnishd couldn't create new threads,
even if the hard limit (thread_pool_max) hadn't been reached yet.
Check:
http://lists.varnish-cache.org/pipermail/varnish-misc/2009-August/002977.html
These particular instances are constantly running 7k threads,
occasionally going to 8-9k. With 24 Gb of RAM.
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
