what about without the slab_chunk_max change? (just bare modern) is usage better?
could I get a stats snapshot from the one that filled? > On Aug 13, 2016, at 9:35 AM, andr...@vimeo.com wrote: > > The "STAT bytes" leveled out at 8.1GB for the 1.4.30 instance (with -C -m > 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o modern,slab_chunk_max=1048576 -f 1.25), vs. 9.4GB for > 1.4.25, and STAT curr_items is 120k vs. 136k. So it still seems to be making > worse use of memory, but it's far better than any of the previous tries with > .29/.30. > >> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:46:41 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >> still running ok? >> >> > On Aug 12, 2016, at 1:10 PM, dormando <dorm...@rydia.net> wrote: >> > >> > Ok. So I think I can narrow the change to explicitly set -f 1.08 if the >> > slab_chunk_max is actually 16k... instead of just if `-o modern` is on... >> > I was careful about filling out a lot of the new values after all of the >> > parsing is done but missed some spots. >> > >> > Thanks for trying it out. I'll wait a few hours in case you find anything >> > else.. or I think of anything else. >> > >> > Much appreciated. >> > >> >> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, and...@vimeo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> That one seems to work okay ― again, I've gotten past 2GB and the >> >> hit-rate is within a few points of where it belongs. I don't have numbers >> >> for the same situation on .29 but >> >> IIRC it was very bad. So I guess .30 is an improvement there. >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:34:00 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >> >> Also, just for completeness: >> >> >> >> Does: >> >> >> >> `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o modern` >> >> >> >> also fail under .30? (without the slab_chunk_max change) >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, dormando wrote: >> >>> >> >>> FML. >> >>> >> >>> Please let me know how it goes. I'm going to take a hard look at this >> >>> and >> >>> see about another bugfix release... there're a couple things I forgot >> >>> from >> >>> .30 anyway. >> >>> >> >>> Your information will be very helpful though. Thanks again for testing >> >>> it. >> >>> All of my testing recently was with explicit configuration options, so I >> >>> didn't notice the glitch with -o modern :( >> >>> >> >>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, and...@vimeo.com wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> It will take a while to fill up entirely, but I passed 2GB with 0 >> >>>> evictions, so it looks like that probably does the job. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >> >>>> Ahhhh crap, I think I see it. >> >>>> >> >>>> Can you add: `-f 1.25` *after* the -o stuff? >> >>>> >> >>>> like this: >> >>>> >> >>>> `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o modern,slab_chunk_max=1048576 -f >> >>>> 1.25` >> >>>> >> >>>> And test that out, please? I might have to back out some >> >>>> over-aggressive >> >>>> switches... and I keep thinking of making this particular problem >> >>>> (which >> >>>> I'll talk about if confirmed) a startup error :( >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, and...@vimeo.com wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> > Here you go. >> >>>> > Yes, 1.4.25 is running with `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o >> >> >> >> maxconns_fast,hash_algorithm=murmur3,lru_maintainer,lru_crawler,slab_reassign,slab_automove`. >> >> >> >>>> > 1.4.30 is running with `-C -m 10240 -I 20m -c 4096 -o >> >>>> modern,slab_chunk_max=1048576`. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >> >>>> > Hey, >> >>>> > >> >>>> > any chance I could see `stats slabs` output as well? a >> >>>> lot of the data's >> >>>> > in there. Need all three: stats, stats items, stats slabs >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Also, did you try 1.4.30 with `-o slab_chunk_max=1048576` >> >>>> as well? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > thanks >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, and...@vimeo.com wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > Thanks! That's an improvement. It's still worse than >> >>>> older versions, but it's better than 1.4.29. This time it made it up to >> >>>> about 1.75GB/10GB >> >> used >> >>>> before it >> >>>> > started evicting; >> >>>> > > I left it running for another 8 hours and it got up to >> >>>> 2GB, but no higher. >> >>>> > > Here's some stats output from the old and new versions, >> >>>> in case you can puzzle anything out of it. >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > Thanks, >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > Andrew >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-4, >> >>>> Dormando wrote: >> >>>> > > Hi, >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> https://github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki/ReleaseNotes1430 >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > Can you please try this? And let me know how it >> >>>> goes either way :) >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, dormando wrote: >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > > Hey, >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > Thanks and sorry about that. I just found a bug >> >>>> this week where the new >> >>>> > > > code is over-allocating (though 30MB out of 10G >> >>>> limit seems odd?) >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > ie: with -I 2m, it would allocate 2 megabytes >> >>>> of memory and then only use >> >>>> > > > up to 1mb of it. A one-line fix for a missed >> >>>> variable conversion. >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > Will likely do a bugfix release later tonight >> >>>> with that and a few other >> >>>> > > > things. >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > Will take a look at your data in hopes it's the >> >>>> same issue at least, >> >>>> > > > thanks! >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, and...@vimeo.com wrote: >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > > I decided to give this a try on a production >> >>>> setup that has a very bimodal size distribution (about a 50/50 split of >> >>>> 10k-100k values >> >> and 1M-10M >> >>>> values) >> >>>> > and >> >>>> > > lots of writes, >> >>>> > > > > where we've been running with "-I 10m -m >> >>>> 10240" for a while. It didn't go so great. Almost immediately there >> >>>> were lots and lots of >> >> evictions, >> >>>> even >> >>>> > though the >> >>>> > > used memory was >> >>>> > > > > only about 30MB of the 10GB limit, and the >> >>>> number of active keys grew very slowly. "-o slab_chunk_max=1048576" may >> >>>> have had some >> >> effect, but it >> >>>> didn't >> >>>> > really >> >>>> > > seem like it. >> >>>> > > > > Setting "slabs automove 2" (usually 1) >> >>>> reduced evictions about 50% but it still wasn't enough to get >> >>>> acceptable performance. >> >>>> > > > > I've rolled back to 1.4.25 for the moment, >> >>>> but I'm attaching a log with "stats" and "stats items" from yesterday. >> >>>> "stats sizes" >> >> wasn't >> >>>> available due to >> >>>> > -C, and >> >>>> > > the log isn't >> >>>> > > > > from as long after startup as I would like, >> >>>> but it's what I got, sorry. >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > Let me know if there's anything else I can do >> >>>> to help. >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > Thanks, >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > Andrew >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:08:49 PM >> >>>> UTC-4, Dormando wrote: >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> https://github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki/ReleaseNotes1429 >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > enjoy. >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > -- >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > --- >> >>>> > > > > 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+...@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+...@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+...@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+...@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+...@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+...@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+...@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+...@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. -- --- 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.
