-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 4/21/11 10:51 AM, Jean-Francois Laurens wrote: > > We’re run varnish 2.1.5 for some week now and we still do not understand > some behavior regarding the shared memory activity.
There's not enough information here for anything better than guesses about what's going on. > We specified a –sfile,/var/lib/varnish/varnish_storage.bin,50G in the > configuration but it’s impossible to go higher than 25G used by varnish. [...] > > In addition I can see varnish doesn’t seem to be able to handle more > than 1 million objects: It's not uncommon for Varnish to use significantly less memory than what was allocated, but not because Varnish can't "handle" it, but just because it works out that way. Due to a combination of factors like usage patterns, TTLs, your command line settings and your VCL, Varnish may decide that it doesn't need more than that. What do your cache hit ratios say? Do the logs or varnishstat give any indication that objects are not being cached when you think they should be? Do you have objects that, semantically, could be cached, but aren't because, for example, they are unnecessarily setting cookies? You might be able to get more into the cache more by tweaking VCL, but as I said, that's just a guess. > When the child process get killed, the load of the system was very high: > Apr 20 21:46:44 server-01-39 varnishd[21087]: Child (5372) not > responding to CLI, killing it. > .... > Apr 20 21:49:57 server-01-39 nrpe[18101]: Command completed with return > code 2 and output: CRITICAL -*load average: 159.00, 159.32, > 77.02*|load1=159.000;15.000;30.000;0; load5=159.320;10.000;25.000;0; > load15=77.020;5.000;20.000;0; > .... > Apr 20 21:48:43 server-01-39 varnishd[21087]: Child (5372) not > responding to CLI, killing it. It looks like the message about high load came after the Varnish processes died, and that might have happened, at least in part, because Varnish was restarted and was getting nothing but cache misses. Unless the high load was caused by something else. Which processes were showing the highest CPU usage? The real question is why the Varnish child was no longer responding to pings. Do you have any panic messages from Varnish in your syslog, or anything else indicating the error? If the load was that high *before* the processes died, your system might have been under so much stress that the child processes just couldn't answer pings in time. In which case your real problem might be something other than Varnish. > All this makes me believe we have an issue with some kernel parameters > that do not allow varnish to handle as many objects as we configured it. It could be that, it could be another process that was causing heavy load, it could be your VCL or your command line settings. Too many open questions here. Best, Geoff - -- UPLEX Systemoptimierung Schwanenwik 24 22087 Hamburg http://uplex.de/ Mob: +49-176-63690917 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNsBgKAAoJEOUwvh9pJNURzS0QAJOvVWr3Yi4DsA2x0Ck+/HTa pkL69dRhUskq5Ll6Ny+e0DBB9I3Dx48ZT9ZxzRcvIZQn4shPl1GPdQQRHCB0ek82 o8lLCdS/ta2HZhQI96FSUBj5RYDrPd3B78cAlvDLYzHsZIUbg90WmizHE/x9vPOi z5TOS/0S3Ao7JIuqkMpkWYyVs4AH6aKIX1L9er9jYLbHp5s8R2ilzs3USeLdC8Kl spGAaSn4mcCVHmhR+ZQ2XQjaf2nxN7oXEIviGOZOWfZ1XX1hQpDtjhp1D9BoInBW oNZmamt6Hd+m00LCu88YhTiBMRDD7zbom9C0NWLf6n7LaCIQteM/KEo1z9tPLAS6 qmQzv+EvBKG5Dpcp81v5TqiUyVDzsYFegoKR6FKCCXvTlCI6avBlik1AlXRhecsF 27da7zMVvoDC44Wo+zqRkwMrtzpmE/Y55wdkP3YBUg/m4nzvci1VYTy3W436NfMe ypjWJ+bQEL9erSURNVDZLl6+I/J4cdcRxPEn96/7vaoDnq9HlvSI9SbAGWj4TDhA ksyvDB2VBGyfaVPnmPy/4CdjbDFXB5lzF2PezUhChrehKoJXeKXPNqegKV89VAo9 EH298HuxKO+xZkVMfO9g0kHdFp6VGSCU8Y+ddU2/tMhxHGMCoXOC/sdcuCHl5HRW G6cSzXYum2Y1ootALk7U =OksF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
