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 ne
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, andr...@vimeo.com wrote:
> Thanks! That's an improvement. It's
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 U
A 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
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:
>
> A crap, I think I see it.
>
> Can you add: `-f 1.25` *after* the -o stuff?
>
> like this:
>
> `-C -m
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 configurati
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... the
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 wr
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 fe
still running ok?
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 1:10 PM, dormando 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
> pa
10 matches
Mail list logo
