Im running 32bit. But I think that I have succeded creating more then
238 threads before on another system with the same setup.
Anyway, 64bit might be the thing to have...
If I want to have Debian, is it AMD64 version that I should go for? (OT)
/ E
Poul-Henning Kamp skrev:
In message [EMAIL
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Torlen writes:
Im running 32bit. But I think that I have succeded creating more then
238 threads before on another system with the same setup.
Anyway, 64bit might be the thing to have...
If I want to have Debian, is it AMD64 version that I should go for? (OT)
Erik Torlen skrev:
Im running 32bit. But I think that I have succeded creating more then
238 threads before on another system with the same setup.
Anyway, 64bit might be the thing to have...
Maybe the init script should issue a warning that a 32bit arch is only
usable as a test enviroment.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Per Buer writes:
Maybe the init script should issue a warning that a 32bit arch is only
usable as a test enviroment.
Well, Varnish is generally usable in 32bit, provided you have
very small content, so I'm hessitant to rule it entirely out,
but yes, we clearly need
Thanks for the tips, I will test this and come back with the result.
/ E
Original Message ---
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:24:52 -0700
Michael S. Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Rafael Umann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is a 32bits
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. The 32bits arch (cant open threads and the storage file is too
small), so im moving into 64bits.
Yes, 32bit is generally not big enough to Varnish for non-trivial
workloads.
2. The cpu usage of the listener process with 2 hits/sec
how about your storage file size?
[]s,
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:20:59 +0200
Erik Torlen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have the same problem :(
The threads are created up to 238 where they are stopped, even if I
set threads_max = 1000 and threads_pools = 2 (or 3).
I also tested the tips
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Torlen writes:
I still have the same problem :(
The threads are created up to 238 where they are stopped, even if I set
threads_max = 1000 and threads_pools = 2 (or 3).
I also tested the tips and decreased the stack sixe to 512 and increased
overflow_max to
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:24:52 -0700
Michael S. Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Rafael Umann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is a 32bits system, probably the problem is that your stack
size is 10Mb. So 238 * 10mb = ~2gb
I decreased my stack size to
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Rafael Umann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is your request:connection ratio?
Unfortunately now i dont have servers doing 2 hits/second, and
thats why i dont have stats for you.
Actually, it's right there in your varnishstat output:
36189916
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:05:21 -0700
Michael S. Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Rafael Umann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your request:connection ratio?
Unfortunately now i dont have servers doing 2 hits/second, and
thats why i dont have stats
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Rafael Umann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If it is a 32bits system, probably the problem is that your stack size
is 10Mb. So 238 * 10mb = ~2gb
I decreased my stack size to 512Kb. Using 1gb storage files i can now
open almost 1900 threads using all the 2gb that
I recently made a loadtest against through varnish.
First I received a very high response time and found out that varnish was
maxing the maximum nr of threads.
I updated thread_min = 5 and thread_max = 300 and recevied much better resp.
times.
Then I increased the nr of concurrent users and
Raising the number of threads will not significantly improve Varnish
concurrency in most cases. I did a test a few months ago using 4 CPUs on
RHEL 4.6 with very high request concurrency and a very low
request-per-connection ratio (i.e., 1:1, no keepalives) and found that the
magic number is about
14 matches
Mail list logo
