No..I'm planning to try that next. So during that time also so do we need to cap transient storage ??
On 15-Sep-2016 01:18, "Guillaume Quintard" <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you tried the packages from your distribution? > > On Sep 14, 2016 20:09, "sujith pv" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> After the full load of requests..g_space became minimal and g_bytes >> became like 8 Gb..I had assigned malloc as 8 gb >> >> On 14-Sep-2016 22:42, "Guillaume Quintard" <[email protected] >> m> wrote: >> >>> What about the other g_space/g_bytes? >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2016 18:33, "sujith pv" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It was showing as 0 for Transient_g_bytes and 1Gb for g_space as I >>>> mentioned in my mail. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Guillaume Quintard < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> please keep using the mailing list, some other people may have ideas. >>>>> >>>>> what's the output of "varnishstat -1 | grep g_bytes" ? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Guillaume Quintard >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:50 PM, sujith pv <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Guillaume >>>>>> >>>>>> I have tried capping Transient and I could see the respective values >>>>>> under SMA.transient.g_bytes/g_space. But still on load I didnt see this >>>>>> g_bytes being used and was showing 0 only. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> Sujith P V >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Guillaume Quintard < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe, not sure. Unless you have a **good** reason to do so, use the >>>>>>> packages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Guillaume Quintard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:19 PM, sujith pv <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Guillaume. Actually in my end Varnish was compiled here and >>>>>>>> installed (I was not part of that initially :-)). Will this have any >>>>>>>> impact >>>>>>>> compared to as you have mentioned like try from a packaged version. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Guillaume Quintard < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's just a question of storage, shortlive objects got into >>>>>>>>> transient storage instead of the one(s) you defined in the command >>>>>>>>> line. >>>>>>>>> But it's still a cache storage, based on malloc, that is by default >>>>>>>>> unlimited in size. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The rationale is that for object with such short ttl+grace+keep, a >>>>>>>>> simple malloc is good enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Guillaume Quintard >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, sujith pv <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually I'm confused around the short lived objects. Is these >>>>>>>>>> objects are something like cached objects or who is creating these >>>>>>>>>> objects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Guillaume Quintard < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't get your question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Quintard >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:31 AM, sujith pv <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Guillaume. May be Im asking a very basic question , but >>>>>>>>>>>> still how this short lived objects are created and I'm not giving >>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>> settings for the same as well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Guillaume Quintard < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/4.1/reference/varnishd.ht >>>>>>>>>>>>> ml#shortlived >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2016 08:07, "sujith pv" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Guillaume. I will try the transient settings first >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and verify the same. Also could you please elaborate on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> short lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sujith P V >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Guillaume Quintard < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Viktor, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a look here https://www.varnish-cache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .org/docs/trunk/users-guide/storage-backends.html#transient- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sujith, please try to use a packaged version from your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Quintard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Viktor Villafuerte < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guillaume, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu 01 Sep 2016 09:53:22, Guillaume Quintard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Is that virtual or real memory? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Try to cap your Transient storage to 1GB, you may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overloaded with short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > lived objects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you elaborate on this bit more? I've got very similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. Eg: Total memory 384g >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VIRT: 487g >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RES: 311g >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free says: 46g free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but SWAP is 91.3% used :( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can this be? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sep 1, 2016 9:40 AM, "sujith pv" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Hi All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I had already mailed this query long back but this time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > different manner. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > - We are using Varnish 4.0 in our end. We have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine with memory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > of 16G with 8G being malloc for Varnish. We have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTL for 2 hrs as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > - During our peak traffic, when we see the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory of the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > reaching 90% and like varnishd process is taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some 89% . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > - So I'm just confused even though we had allocated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just 8G malloc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > which is like 50% of the total memory, how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process is eating up 89% of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > memory and the memory is not releasing even after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Any help please... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Best Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Sujith P V >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > varnish-misc mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > https://www.varnish-cache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > varnish-misc mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.varnish-cache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viktor Villafuerte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus Internet Engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t: +61 2 80825265 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
