Have you walked through those links I gave you? You haven't mentioned exactly what you're seeing and those links walk you through narrowing it down a lot as well as listing a lot of things to look for.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Patrick Santora wrote: > Hrmm. Still having issues. Here is the latest stats dump. I also talked with > my IT person and he mentioned the following setup, which does > not look like an issue? > NIC SETTINGS > the servers should all be autonegotiating to 100/Full and we apply these > additional kernel tuning parameters > net.core.rmem_max = 16777216 > net.core.wmem_max = 16777216 > net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 16777216 > net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 16777216 > > LATEST STATS > STAT pid 1788 > STAT uptime 44811 > STAT time 1298311271 > STAT version 1.4.5 > STAT pointer_size 64 > STAT rusage_user 178.875806 > STAT rusage_system 763.939863 > STAT curr_connections 811 > STAT total_connections 2012 > STAT connection_structures 813 > STAT cmd_get 876886 > STAT cmd_set 74747 > STAT cmd_flush 0 > STAT get_hits 858907 > STAT get_misses 17979 > STAT delete_misses 0 > STAT delete_hits 2 > STAT incr_misses 0 > STAT incr_hits 0 > STAT decr_misses 0 > STAT decr_hits 0 > STAT cas_misses 0 > STAT cas_hits 0 > STAT cas_badval 0 > STAT auth_cmds 0 > STAT auth_errors 0 > STAT bytes_read 17426408671 > STAT bytes_written 180479901035 > STAT limit_maxbytes 536870912 > STAT accepting_conns 1 > STAT listen_disabled_num 0 > STAT threads 4 > STAT conn_yields 0 > STAT bytes 3501518 > STAT curr_items 3230 > STAT total_items 74747 > STAT evictions 0 > STAT reclaimed 20950 > END > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Patrick Santora <patwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Dustin > Thanks, I will be disabling them to see if that helps. > > -Pat > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Dustin <dsalli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 21, 12:31 am, Patrick Santora <patwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Heh. I had a funny feeling that was going to be the answer. I was > curious > > mostly because the Binary mode seemed to do quite a deal of good for > > Facebook when it was used. I'm imagining that they cached images so > binary > > was a good idea, but for simple structures like json, it might not > make much > > sense. So thought I would get some opinions :). > > binary protocol doesn't make much of a difference wrt what you're > caching, but can help you optimize some access patterns with a > sufficiently smart client. If you're concerned that it may be making > things worse (it probably doesn't have a huge effect from what I'm > hearing here), you can just try disabling it. > > > > >
