On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <[email protected]> wrote: > ]] Simon Males > > | Since this post, I increased the thread_pools to 8, though today I've > | had another spurt of dropped work requests. It's definitely related to > | a sudden rise of traffic, as the dropped requests happen moment after > | sending an E-Mail to our users. > | > | The servers have 16 cores, so I've increased the thread_pools to 16 > | now. With 10 minimum threads per pool, I now have 160 threads waiting > | to serve. > > If you're on 2.1 you might want to set thread_pool_add_delay to 2 (ms) > or similar. It's set a bit too high there, which means it takes a > little while for Varnish to respond to rapid spikes.
Just wanted to say thanks to the contributors to this thread Václav Bílek and Tollef Fog Heen. I actually held back on the advice and wanted to see how far 160 minimum threads would get me (16 pools x 10 minimum). The next spike produced 320k limited worker threads (n_wrk_max) per server. I set the following parameters on the fly hoping to manage the spike. But the real test will be the next spike. thread_pool_add_delay 2 thread_pool_max 250 thread_pool_min 100 Though now my committed memory usage (according to Munin) is 16G. The server has a total of 4G and 2G malloc cache. Is there an equation I can use to determine how much memory I need with my current parameters? Additionally can I deduce from varnishstats how many threads are being used? e.g. How many of the minimum 1600 are being used. -- Simon Males _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
