Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

It's looking like slab_chunk_max of 512k will sit better as a default until stitching is done... It doesn't create slab classes of say (770k) that still take 1MB of space due to the slab mover needing consistent page sizes. It doesn't have the low end efficiency hole between 16k and ~80k slab

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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...

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

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

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

Thanks for the clarification that is much clearer ^_^ On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:52:25 AM UTC+10, Dormando wrote: > > Hi, > > I updated the release notes to be a little more clear. You use the -I > option, don't touch slab_chunk_max at all unless you really know what > you're doing. > >

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

Hi, I updated the release notes to be a little more clear. You use the -I option, don't touch slab_chunk_max at all unless you really know what you're doing. All you have to do is: -I 2m ie: -I 2m -o modern ... and you have a modern startup option with a 2m item limit. On Fri, 15 Jul 2016,

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

ah units in KB so -o slab_chunk_max=2048 ? how is it passed on command line with modern flag too ? -o modern,slab_chunk_max=2048 ?? On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:06:35 PM UTC+10, Centmin Mod George Liu wrote: > > so to clarify if i want to raise max item size to 2MB i'd set -o >

Re: 1.4.29 (large item support)

so to clarify if i want to raise max item size to 2MB i'd set -o slab_chunk_max=2097152 ? On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:49 AM UTC+10, Dormando wrote: > > https://github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki/ReleaseNotes1429 > > enjoy. > -- --- You received this message because you are

1.4.29 (large item support)

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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

large item support

https://github.com/memcached/memcached/pull/181 proper, this time. hoping to be done by friday. -- --- 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