thanks. posting, top stop Please On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:59:58AM +0100, George Georgovassilis wrote: > Thank you for the hint. Here are the values: > > thread_pools = 2 > thread_pool_min = 2 > thread_pool_max = 200 (was 2 at the time of my initial tests) > thread_pool_add_delay = 2
As have already been pointed out, this is a low value. This also explains why session_linger is an issue to you. Unless you are on 32-bit (which you shouldn't ever ever ever be), there's no reason to not always have a thousand threads laying around. Your settings also means that you have FOUR threads available when you start your tests. Not exactly a lot of room for bursts of traffic. Your other mail actually had a thread_pool_max of 16. That will give you a maximum of 16 concurrent requests that can be handled, with an other 32 that can be queued. With session_linger, these threads will remain allocated to the connection for a longer duration, thus it's obvious that in this case, your thread starvation was the real issue and you just triggered it faster with a higher session_linger. It's a perfectly obvious and mystery-free explanation. Session lingering is a mechanism to avoid trashing your system during high load by constantly moving data around between threads, but it depends on reasonable thread-settings - or rather: an abundance of threads. http://kristianlyng.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/varnish-best-practices/ sounds like a good place to start reading. Specially about threads. - Kristian _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
