On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:51 PM Winkelmann, Thomas (RADIO TELE FFH - Online) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just tested these values. Varnish is nearly dead after restarting with these > new values. Only a few requests will be served. I think, we have to wait :)
I guess now would be a good time to bring back h2load. If you increase thread_pool_min to 2000 (a value that shouldn't be unreasonable) that brings the thread_pool_reserve to 400, so even if I didn't bump it further to 500 it'd be in the same ballpark. And if that is enough to bring Varnish to a crawl we may have a deeper problem here. As a general rule of thumb we recommend a thread_pool_min sized for high (for a given definition of high, let's say above average) traffic so that sudden peaks of traffic wouldn't wait too long for threads to be created. I don't see why that should become a problem with Varnish 6 :-/ Dridi _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
