How about compare the sysctl settings from the two systems? On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Mark Felder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 20:24, Mark Felder wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016, at 19:16, Stephen Weeks wrote: > > > We have several varnishd instances that have been running fine for > > > years at constant memory use. We've recently decided to upgrade our > > > linux distribution. After some troubleshooting, we were unable to > > > find a configuration of Varnish on the new distro version that did not > > > have dramatically higher memory usage. > > > > I suspect Linux kernel's memory management changes are your problem, not > > Varnish. > > > > What is the version of the kernel on the instances that work well for > > you? > > > > > > I don't have any expertise on kernels that new. My Linux knowledge ends > around 2.6.32 :-) > > I'd probably look at Linux commits in git under mm/ which is where all > the memory management code is at and read through until I saw something > significant enough like some new knobs or a major overhaul that might be > worth trying to back out and test with a custom kernel. > > If you have the time and the hardware I'd also try installing FreeBSD > and testing your varnish config just to see another data point on memory > usage. If it's considerably better, see if you can get a Linux kernel > developer's attention and point out that 3.2 and a different OS both > fare much, much better for your workload. They might have enough > expertise to track down a regression. > > -- > Mark Felder > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-misc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc >
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
