In message , Tim Kientzle wri
tes:
>It also appears that Varnish eventually exits completely
>if placed under high load. I'm okay with that as long as it's
>intentional behavior;
It is not intentional.
The entire point about the two-process trick is to not ever throw
in the towel if we can avo
On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20090123222947.gb28...@digdug.corp.631h.metaweb.com>,
> Niall O'Higgi
> ns writes:
Can I get you to take -trunk for a spin ?
At least the second of the problems you pasted I'm pretty sure I
have nailed recentl
In message <20090128183618.ge28...@digdug.corp.631h.metaweb.com>, Niall O'Higgi
ns writes:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:18:48AM -0800, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Niall O'Higgins wrote:
>
>Varnish is running on a dual CPU (amd64) Linux 2.6 machine. We have
>pushed it
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:18:48AM -0800, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Niall O'Higgins wrote:
>>> This is a typical indication of raw overload, what levels of traffic
>>> are you hitting it with ?
>>
>> This kind of thing:
>>
>> Transaction rate:3776.65 tran
On Jan 28, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Niall O'Higgins wrote:
>> This is a typical indication of raw overload, what levels of traffic
>> are you hitting it with ?
>
> This kind of thing:
>
> Transaction rate:3776.65 trans/sec
> Throughput: 1.68 MB/sec
> Concurrency:
In message <20090128180448.gd28...@digdug.corp.631h.metaweb.com>, Niall O'Higgi
ns writes:
>Transaction rate:3776.65 trans/sec
>Throughput: 1.68 MB/sec
>Concurrency: 28.28
>
>Does the parent process give up on restarting the child after a
>certain
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:54:26AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >I've re-run the load test against varnish-trunk. Trunk is better
> >behaved, but I now get output like this over and over:
> >
> >child (19731) Started
> >Child (19731) said Closed fds: 4 7 8 10 11
> >Child (19731) said Child st
In message <20090123222947.gb28...@digdug.corp.631h.metaweb.com>, Niall O'Higgi
ns writes:
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> Can I get you to take -trunk for a spin ?
>>>
>>> At least the second of the problems you pasted I'm pretty sure I
>>> have nailed recently and the first one could easily be the same one
Hi,
Regarding:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:05:55PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> Under heavy load, we're seeing a lot of segfaults and
>>> assertion failures. I've pasted an excerpt below of
>>> two of the issues we've seen using Varnish 2.
Dual-core AMD processor using the x86_64 kernel. Uname shows:
Linux 2.6.21.5 #9 SMP Thu Aug 16 17:21:29 UTC 2007 x86_64 AMD
Opteron(tm) Processor 248 AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Iliya Sharov wrote:
> amd64 or i386 architecture?
>
> Tim Kientzle пишет:
>> We're evaluati
In message <6545783f-b1a7-4fda-94d8-8439a2d13...@metaweb.com>, Tim Kientzle wri
tes:
>Under heavy load, we're seeing a lot of segfaults and
>assertion failures. I've pasted an excerpt below of
>two of the issues we've seen using Varnish 2.0.2 on Linux
>2.6.21 kernel with the default VCL (using co
amd64 or i386 architecture?
Tim Kientzle пишет:
> We're evaluating Varnish as a possible replacement for our
> installed Squid servers. Performance-wise, Varnish is very
> impressive, and we're pretty pleased with the configuration
> flexibility.
>
> But...
>
> Under heavy load, we're seeing a lo
12 matches
Mail list logo
