No crash and error is found. I will keep it running on the dev environment.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, dormando dorma...@rydia.net wrote:
Thanks!
No crashes is interesting/useful at least? No errors or other problems?
I'm still hoping someone can side-by-side in production with the
This is more of a comment, but I noticed when debugging w/ running the
lru_maintainer option under extreme verbosity (-vvv), I get an endless
running/sleeping message.
~ ./memcached -vvv -o lru_maintainer
// ... slab start-up ...
LRU maintainer thread running
LRU maintainer thread
Can probably get rid of that since I added the juggles stat. and/or
rename it to maintainer_runs or something... was useful to see if I'd hung
the thread.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Eric McConville wrote:
This is more of a comment, but I noticed when debugging w/ running the
lru_maintainer option
Thanks!
No crashes is interesting/useful at least? No errors or other problems?
I'm still hoping someone can side-by-side in production with the
recommended settings. I can come up with synthetic tests all day and it
doesn't educate in the same way.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote:
Our maintain team trend to be conservative, especially on the basic
software relative to performance. so I think it is rare possible to post it
to the production recently. But I write a pretty convenient tools in Python
for an A/B test. The tool can fake traffic of random expire-time and random
If you want?
What would make you confident enough to try the branch in production? Or
do you rely on your other patches and that's not really possible?
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote:
I try to use real traffic of application to make a compare test, but it
seems that not all of guys
I try to use real traffic of application to make a compare test, but it
seems that not all of guys use the cache-client with consistent hash in dev
environment. The result is that the traffic is not distributed well as I
supposed.
Should I fake the traffic and make a compare test instead of
Last update to the branch was 3 days ago. I'm not planning on doing any
more work on it at the moment, so people have a chance to test it.
thanks!
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Zhiwei Chan wrote:
I compile directly using your branch on the test server, and please tell me
if it need update and
I compile directly using your branch on the test server, and please tell me
if it need update and re-compile.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, dormando dorma...@rydia.net wrote:
That sounds like an okay place to start. Can you please make sure the
other dev server is running the very latest
I have run it since last Friday, so far no crash. As I have finished the
haproxy works today, I will try a compare test for this LRU works tomorrow
as following:
There are two servers(Centos 5.8, 8cores, 8G memory) in the dev
environment, Both of server run 32 memcached instances(processes)
That sounds like an okay place to start. Can you please make sure the
other dev server is running the very latest version of the branch? A lot
changed since last friday... a few pretty bad bugs.
Please use the startup options described in the middle of the PR.
If anyone's brave enough to try the
Hi,
https://github.com/memcached/memcached/pull/97
I've been poking at the TODO list since originally posting and fixed a
number of bugs. I'm taking some extra time to think about the slab
rebalancer situation and will be doing more testing than coding from now
on.
Hoping to get some of you
To: memcached@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: memory efficiency / LRU refactor branch
Hi,
https://github.com/memcached/memcached/pull/97
I've been poking at the TODO list since originally posting and fixed a number
of bugs. I'm taking some extra time to think about the slab rebalancer
situation
to monitor it?
-Original Message-
From: memcached@googlegroups.com [mailto:memcached@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of dormando
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 9:25 PM
To: memcached@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: memory efficiency / LRU refactor branch
Hi,
https://github.com/memcached
I'm willing to help out in any way possible. What can I do?
-Original Message-
From: memcached@googlegroups.com [mailto:memcached@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of dormando
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3:52 AM
To: memcached@googlegroups.com
Subject: memory efficiency / LRU refactor
To be extra clear; you can send feeback here or the PR. I don't care
either way.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, dormando wrote:
Hey,
To all three of you: Just run it anywhere you can (but not more than one
machine, yet?), with the options prescribed in the PR. Ideally you have
graphs of the hit ratio
Hey,
To all three of you: Just run it anywhere you can (but not more than one
machine, yet?), with the options prescribed in the PR. Ideally you have
graphs of the hit ratio and maybe cache fullness and can compare
before/after.
And let me know if it hangs or crashes, obviously. If so a
Same here. Do you want any findings posted to the mailing list, or the PU
thread?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Ryan McCullagh m...@ryanmccullagh.com wrote:
I'm willing to help out in any way possible. What can I do?
-Original Message-
From: memcached@googlegroups.com
I will deploy it to one of our test environment on CentOS 5.8, for a
comparison test with the 1.4.21, although the workloads is not as heavy as
product environment. Tell me if any I could help.
2015-01-07 23:30 GMT+08:00 Eric McConville erichasem...@gmail.com:
Same here. Do you want any
19 matches
Mail list logo
