ah. I pushed two more changes earlier. should fix mem_requested. just cosmetic stuff though
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Scott Mansfield <smansfi...@netflix.com> wrote: > > Oops, looks like the latest code didn't get into production today. I'm > building it again, same plan as before. > >> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 4:38:00 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> Looking forward to the results. Thanks for getting on this so quickly. >> >> I think there's still a bug in tracking requested memory, and I want to >> move the stats counters to a rollup at the end of a page move. >> Otherwise I think this branch is complete pending any further stability >> issues or feedback. >> >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> >> > I just put the newest code into production. I'm going to monitor it for a >> > bit to see how it behaves. As long as there's no obvious issues I'll >> > enable reads in a few hours, which are an order of magnitude more traffic. >> > I'll let you know what I find. >> > >> > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 1:29:03 AM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > It took a day of running torture tests which took 30-90 minutes to >> > fail, >> > but along with a bunch of house chores I believe I've found the >> > problem: >> > >> > https://github.com/dormando/memcached/tree/slab_rebal_next - has a >> > new >> > commit, specifically this: >> > >> > https://github.com/dormando/memcached/commit/1c32e5eeff5bd2a8cc9b652a2ed808157e4929bb >> > >> > >> > It's somewhat relieving that when I brained this super hard back in >> > january I may have actually gotten the complex set of interactions >> > correct, I simply failed to keep typing when converting the comments >> > to >> > code. >> > >> > So this has been broken since 1.4.24, but hardly anyone uses the >> > page >> > mover apparently. It's survived a 5 hour torture test (that I wrote >> > in >> > 2011!) once fixed (previously dying after 30-90 minutes). So please >> > give >> > this one a try and let me know how it goes. >> > >> > If it goes well I can merge up some other fixes from PR list and cut >> > a >> > release, unless someone has feedback for something to change. >> > >> > thanks! >> > >> > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, dormando wrote: >> > >> > > I've seen items.c:1183 reported elsewhere in 1.4.24... so probably >> > the bug >> > > was introduced when I rewrote the page mover for that. >> > > >> > > I didn't mean to send me a core file: I mean if you dump the core >> > you can >> > > load it in gdb and get the backtrace (bt + thread apply all bt) >> > > >> > > Don't have a handler for convenient attaching :( >> > > >> > > didn't get a chance to poke at this today... I'll need another day >> > to try >> > > it out. >> > > >> > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > >> > > > Sorry for the data dumps here, but I want to give you everything >> > I have. I found 3 more addresses that showed up in the dmesg logs: >> > > > >> > > > $ for addr in 40e013 40eff4 40f7c4; do addr2line -e memcached >> > $addr; done >> > > > >> > > > .../build/memcached-1.4.24-slab-rebal-next/slabs.c:265 >> > (discriminator 1) >> > > > >> > > > .../build/memcached-1.4.24-slab-rebal-next/items.c:312 >> > (discriminator 1) >> > > > >> > > > .../build/memcached-1.4.24-slab-rebal-next/items.c:1183 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I still haven't tried to attach a debugger, since the frequency >> > of the error would make it hard to catch it. Is there a handler that I >> > could add in to dump the stack trace when it segfaults? I'd get a core >> > dump, but they would be HUGE and contain confidential information. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Below are the full dmesg logs. Out of 205 servers, 35 had dmesg >> > logs after a memcached crash, and only one crashed twice, both times on >> > the original segfault. Below is the full unified set of dmesg logs, from >> > which you can get a sense of frequency. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > [47992.109269] memcached[2798]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f4d20d25eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48960.851278] memcached[2805]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f3c30d15eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [46421.604609] memcached[2784]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007fdb94612eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48429.671534] traps: memcached[2768] general protection >> > ip:40e013 sp:7f1c32676be0 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [71838.979269] memcached[2792]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f0162feeeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [66763.091475] memcached[2804]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f8240170eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [102544.376092] traps: memcached[2792] general protection >> > ip:40eff4 sp:7fa58095be18 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [49932.757825] memcached[2777]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f1ff2131eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [50400.415878] memcached[2794]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f11a26daeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48986.340345] memcached[2786]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f9235279eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [44742.175894] memcached[2796]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007eff3a0cceb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [49030.431879] memcached[2776]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007fdef27cfbe0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [50211.611439] traps: memcached[2782] general protection >> > ip:40e013 sp:7f9ee1723be0 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [62534.892817] memcached[2783]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f37f2d4beb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [78697.201195] memcached[2801]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f696ef1feb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48922.246712] memcached[2804]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f1ebb338eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [52170.371014] memcached[2809]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f5e62fcbeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [69531.775868] memcached[2785]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007ff50ac2eeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48926.661559] memcached[2799]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f71e0ac6be0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [49491.126885] memcached[2745]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f5737c4beb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [104247.724294] traps: memcached[2793] general protection >> > ip:40f7c4 sp:7f3af8c27eb0 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [78098.528606] traps: memcached[2757] general protection >> > ip:412b9d sp:7fc0700dbdd0 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [71958.385432] memcached[2809]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f8b68cd0eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48934.182852] memcached[2787]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f0aef774eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [104220.754195] traps: memcached[2802] general protection >> > ip:40f7c4 sp:7ffa85a2deb0 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [45807.670246] memcached[2755]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007fd74a1d0eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [73640.102621] memcached[2802]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f7bb30bfeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [67690.640196] memcached[2787]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f299580feb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [57729.895442] memcached[2786]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f204073deb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48009.284226] memcached[2801]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f7b30876eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [48198.211826] memcached[2811]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007fd496d79eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [84057.439927] traps: memcached[2804] general protection >> > ip:40f7c4 sp:7fbe75fffeb0 error:0 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [50215.489124] memcached[2784]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f3234b73eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [46545.316351] memcached[2789]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f362ceedeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [102076.523474] memcached[29833]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007f3c89b9ebe0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > [55537.568254] memcached[2780]: segfault at 0 ip >> > 000000000040e007 sp 00007fc1f6005eb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:40:35 PM UTC-7, Dormando >> > wrote: >> > > > got it. that might be a decent hint actually... I had >> > addded a bugfix to >> > > > the branch to not miscount the mem_requested counter, but >> > it's not working >> > > > or I missed a spot. >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > The number now, after maybe 90 minutes of writes, is >> > 1,446. I think after disabling a lot of the data TTL'd out. I have to >> > disable it for now, again (for unrelated reasons, again). The page that I >> > screenshotted gives real time data, so the numbers were from right then. >> > Last night, it should have shown better numbers in terms of >> > "total_pages", >> > > > but I didn't >> > > > > get a screenshot. That number is directly from the stats >> > slabs output. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 4:21:42 PM UTC-7, >> > Dormando wrote: >> > > > > ok... slab class 12 claims to have 2 in >> > "total_pages", yet 14g in >> > > > > mem_requested. is this stat wrong? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > The ones that crashed (new code cluster) were >> > set to only be written to from the client applications. The data is an >> > index key and a series of data keys that are all written one after >> > another. Each key might be hashed to a different server, though, so not >> > all of them are written to the same server. I can give you a snapshot >> > of one of >> > > > the >> > > > > clusters that >> > > > > > didn't crash (attached file). I can give more >> > detail offline if you need it. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 2:32:53 PM >> > UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > Any chance you could describe (perhaps >> > privately?) in very broad strokes >> > > > > > what the write load looks like? (they're >> > getting only writes, too?). >> > > > > > otherwise I'll have to devise arbitrary >> > torture tests. I'm sure the bug's >> > > > > > in there but it's not obvious yet >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, dormando wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > perfect, thanks! I have $dayjob as well >> > but will look into this as soon as >> > > > > > > I can. my torture test machines are in a >> > box but I'll try to borrow one >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Scott Mansfield >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Yes. Exact args: >> > > > > > > > -p 11211 -u <omitted> -l 0.0.0.0 -c >> > 100000 -o slab_reassign -o >> > lru_maintainer,lru_crawler,hash_algorithm=murmur3 -I 4m -m 56253 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at >> > 12:41:06 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > Were >> > lru_maintainer/lru_crawler/etc enabled though? even if slab mover is >> > > > > > > > off, those two were the big >> > changes in .24 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Scott >> > Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The same cluster has > 400 >> > servers happily running 1.4.24. It's been our standard deployment for a >> > while now, and we haven't seen any crashes. The servers in the same >> > cluster running 1.4.24 (with the same write load the new build was taking) >> > have been up for 29 days. The start options do not contain the >> > slab_automove >> > > > option >> > > > > because >> > > > > > it wasn't >> > > > > > > > effective for >> > > > > > > > > us before. The memory given is >> > possibly slightly different per server, as we calculate on startup how >> > much we give. It's in the same ballpark, though (~56 gigs). >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, October 1, 2015 >> > at 12:11:35 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > Just before I sit in and >> > try to narrow this down: have you run any host on >> > > > > > > > > 1.4.24 mainline with >> > those same start options? just in case the crash is >> > > > > > > > > older >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, >> > Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Another message for >> > you: >> > > > > > > > > > [78098.528606] traps: >> > memcached[2757] general protection ip:412b9d sp:7fc0700dbdd0 error:0 in >> > memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > addr2line shows: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > $ addr2line -e >> > memcached 412b9d >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > /mnt/builds/slave/workspace/TL-SYS-memcached-slab_rebal_next/build/memcached-1.4.24-slab-rebal-next/assoc.c:119 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, October >> > 1, 2015 at 1:41:44 AM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks! >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'll noodle this >> > a bit... unfortunately a backtrace might be more helpful. >> > > > > > > > > > will ask you to >> > attempt to get one if I don't figure anything out in time. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > (allow it to >> > core dump or attach a GDB session and set an ignore handler >> > > > > > > > > > for >> > sigpipe/int/etc and run "continue") >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > what were your >> > full startup args, though? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct >> > 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The commit was >> > the latest in slab_rebal_next at the time: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/dormando/memcached/commit/bdd688b4f20120ad844c8a4803e08c6e03cb061a >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > addr2line gave >> > me this output: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > $ addr2line -e >> > memcached 0x40e007 >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > /mnt/builds/slave/workspace/TL-SYS-memcached-slab_rebal_next/build/memcached-1.4.24-slab-rebal-next/slabs.c:264 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As well, this >> > was running with production writes, but not reads. Even if we had reads on >> > with the few servers crashing, we're ok architecturally. That's why I can >> > get it out there without worrying too much. For now, I'm going to turn it >> > off. I had a metrics issue anyway that needs to get >> > fixed. >> > > > Tomorrow I'm >> > > > > planning >> > > > > > to test >> > > > > > > > again with >> > > > > > > > > more >> > > > > > > > > > metrics, but I >> > > > > > > > > > > can get any >> > new code in pretty quick. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, >> > October 1, 2015 at 1:01:36 AM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > How many >> > servers were you running it on? I hope it wasn't more than a >> > > > > > > > > > > handful. >> > I'd recommend starting with one :P >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > can you >> > do an addr2line? what were your startup args, and what was the >> > > > > > > > > > > commit >> > sha1 for the branch you pulled? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > sorry >> > about that :/ >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, >> > 1 Oct 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > A few >> > different servers (5 / 205) experienced a segfault all within an hour or >> > so. Unfortunately at this point I'm a bit out of my depth. I have the >> > dmesg output, which is identical for all 5 boxes: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > [46545.316351] memcached[2789]: segfault at 0 ip 000000000040e007 sp >> > 00007f362ceedeb0 error 4 in memcached[400000+1d000] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I can >> > possibly supply the binary file if needed, though we didn't do anything >> > besides the standard setup and compile. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On >> > Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 10:27:59 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > If you look at the new branch there's a commit explaining the new stats. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > You can watch slab_reassing_evictions vs slab_reassign_saves. you can also >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > test automove=1 vs automove=2 (please also turn on the lru_maintainer and >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > lru_crawler). >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > The initial branch you were running didn't add any new stats. It just >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > restored an old feature. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > An unrelated prod problem meant I had to stop after about an hour. I'm >> > turning it on again tomorrow morning. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Are there any new metrics I should be looking at? Anything new in the >> > stats output? I'm about to take a look at the diffs as well. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:37:45 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > excellent. if automove=2 is too aggressive you'll see that come in >> > in a >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > hit ratio reduction. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the new branch works with automove=2 as well, but it will attempt >> > to >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > rescue valid items in the old slab if possible. I'll still be >> > working on >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > it for another few hours today though. I'll mail again when I'm >> > done. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I have the first commit (slab_automove=2) running in prod right >> > now. Later today will be a full load production test of the latest code. >> > I'll just let it run for a few days unless I spot any problems. We have >> > good metrics for latency et. al. from the client side, >> > though network >> > > > normally >> > > > > dwarfs >> > > > > > memcached >> > > > > > > > time. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 3:10:03 AM UTC-7, Dormando >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > That's unfortunate. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I've done some more work on the branch: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/memcached/memcached/pull/112 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > It's not completely likely you would see enough of an >> > improvement from the >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > new default mode. However if your item sizes change >> > gradually, items are >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > reclaimed during expiration, or get overwritten (and thus >> > freed in the old >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > class), it should work just fine. I have another patch >> > coming which should >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > help though. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Open to feedback from any interested party. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have it running internally, and it runs fine under >> > normal load. It's difficult to put it into the line of fire for a >> > production workload because of social reasons... As well it's a degenerate >> > case that we normally don't run in to (and actively try to avoid). >> > I'm going >> > > > to run >> > > > > some >> > > > > > heavier load >> > > > > > > > tests on >> > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > > today. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-7, >> > Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm working on getting a test going internally. >> > I'll let you know how it goes. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Scott Mansfield >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:33 PM, dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yo, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > https://github.com/dormando/memcached/commits/slab_rebal_next - would you >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > mind playing around with the branch here? You can >> > see the start options in >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > the test. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This is a dead simple modification (a restoration >> > of a feature that was >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > arleady there...). The test very aggressively >> > writes and is able to shunt >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > memory around appropriately. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The work I'm exploring right now will allow >> > savings of items being >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rebalanced from, and increasing the aggression of >> > page moving without >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > being so brain damaged about it. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > But while I'm poking around with that, I'd be >> > interested in knowing if >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > this simple branch is an improvement, and if so >> > how much. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I'll push more code to the branch, but the changes >> > should be gated behind >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a feature flag. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 'Scott Mansfield' via >> > memcached wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > No worries man, you're doing us a favor. Let me >> > know if there's anything you need from us, and I promise I'll be quicker >> > this time :) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Aug 18, 2015 12:01 AM, "dormando" >> > <dorm...@rydia.net> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hey, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm still really interested in working on >> > this. I'll be taking a careful >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > look soon I hope. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've tweaked the program slightly, so >> > I'm adding a new version. It prints more stats as it goes and runs a bit >> > faster. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:20:37 AM >> > UTC-7, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Total brain fart on my part. >> > Apparently I had memcached 1.4.13 on my path (who knows how...) Using the >> > actual one that I've built works. Sorry for the confusion... can't believe >> > I didn't realize that before. I'm testing against the >> > compiled one now >> > > > to see >> > > > > how it >> > > > > > behaves. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at >> > 1:15:06 AM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > You sure that's 1.4.24? None >> > of those fail for me :( >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Scott >> > Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The command line I've used >> > that will start is: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > memcached -m 64 -o >> > slab_reassign,slab_automove >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the ones that fail are: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > memcached -m 64 -o >> > slab_reassign,slab_automove,lru_crawler,lru_maintainer >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > memcached -o lru_crawler >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'm sure I've missed >> > something during compile, though I just used ./configure and make. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 >> > at 12:22:33 AM UTC-7, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I've attached a >> > pretty simple program to connect, fill a slab with data, and then fill >> > another slab slowly with data of a different size. I've been trying to get >> > memcached to run with the lru_crawler and lru_maintainer flags, >> > but I get >> > > > ' >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Illegal suboption >> > "(null)"' every time I try to start with either in any configuration. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I haven't seen it >> > start to move slabs automatically with a freshly installed 1.2.24. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 21, >> > 2015 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-7, Scott Mansfield wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I realize I've >> > not given you the tests to reproduce the behavior. I should be able to >> > soon. Sorry about the delay here. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In the mean time, I wanted >> > to bring up a possible secondary use of the same logic to move items on >> > slab rebalancing. I think the system might benefit from using the same >> > logic to crawl the pages in a slab and compact the data in >> > the >> > > > background. In >> > > > > the case >> > > > > > where we >> > > > > > > > have >> > > > > > > > > memory that >> > > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > > assigned >> > to >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > the slab >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > but not >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > being used >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > because >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of replaced >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > or TTL'd out data, >> > returning the memory to a pool of free memory will allow a slab to grow >> > with that memory first instead of waiting for an event where memory is >> > needed at that instant. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It's a change in approach, >> > from reactive to proactive. What do you think? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ... > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
