I know what beta testing is, so I hope you didn't think I was trying to yank
your chain! I knew that if it got ugly I could easily take that server
offline and easily back out the code.
As it was, it got even uglier since I last wrote in. Again this is FYI...
for input on the beta and all... The load balancing service I'm using
masked the more serious problem of the data failing with get passed
somewhere in the bowels of Apache/mod_perl where it was before. I'll tinker
with it in the wee hours to see if it is failing on the set or the retrieve.
I reviewed the syntax and there doesn't appear to be any changes between new
and old (did I miss anything?... it's a little late in the day and I had a
long weekend :) and it's possible I did and I didn't review for any
caveats... ).
-Karyn
-----Original Message-----
From: 'DeWitt Clinton' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:36 PM
To: Karyn Ulriksen
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: mod_perl and IPC
That's why I wanted more beta testers on real servers. :)
You may want to roll back to 0.02 on that server. I'll run some more
benchmarks and profile the code to see where the issue is. IPC::Cache
actually got a lot lighter, since I'm relying on IPC::SharedCache to
do most of the work.
I'll let you know what I come up with. Thanks again!
BTW, I bet File::Cache gives better performance, but that would
require modifying a little of your code.
-DeWitt
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:20:14PM -0700, Karyn Ulriksen wrote:
> Yikes!
>
> I installed this and your recommends on one of my cluster servers to see
> how it would do and do a good compare to how it performed against the
other
> servers in that cluster. The CPU utilization immediately leaped to
25-30%.
> Can we get the performance a little more happy? Let me know what I can
> check on my end for you on this...
>
> Of note, I have simple test scripts I use for debugging db-to-cache
> (usually it's the db) issues outside of the Apache/mod_perl environment
and
> compared the response times on a server with vs. without. (These servers
> typically handle pretty close to the same load). I noted that the
response
> time on the new .04 code was slower than than the one with the .02 code.
Of
> course, I may have been seeing that because the CPU was being hit pretty
> hard.
>
> Let me know soon, because I will have to back it out (easy for me to
do)
> and bring up the server with the old .02 code before I take off today.
>
> -Karyn
