[PATCH] backend conditional requests 5th release

[Geoff Simmons]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 3/10/11 7:18 PM, Dmitry Panov wrote:
> 
> I have finally been able to test the patched version under some proper
> load. I was using tsung (http://tsung.erlang-projects.org/). I recorded
> a browser session in which I accessed a couple of pages, then tried to
> replay it with tsung.
> 
> It looks like there is a memory leak in the patched version because the
> virtual memory size grew at a constant pace until eventually varnishd
> filled up the whole available space. I tried exactly the same scenario
> with an unpatched trunk (same revision that I applied the patch to) and
> it worked fine. Note there were no stale objects or conditional requests
> during the test because I set ttl to a high value so it's either a hit
> or a miss for an uncacheable object.

Thanks as always, Dmitry. That last part is interesting, if there are no
stale objects or conditional requests, then Varnish should behave
exactly as if the patch weren't there.

I assume you tested the most recent version of the patch (v5, attached
to the mail that you quoted)? I had fixed a memory leak in an earlier
version; but that leak only could have happened if there had been stale
objects.

Did you notice whether there were more cache misses with the patched
version? And did you by any chance run varnishstat -1 after load testing
the two versions? If so, I'd be interested if there were any noticeable
difference in stats about memory usage, such as n_object, s_hdrbytes,
s_bodybytes or the stevedore stats.

BTW, with default settings (default_keep = 0), the patched version won't
do any conditional requests, so that should be enough to get it to
behave the same as the unpatched version.

> I have a rather complex setup which includes apache with mod_proxy_html
> which I use to reverse proxy a real Internet web site
> (www.telegraph.co.uk). If there is anything I can do to help you
> diagnose the problem, please let me know.

I'll see if I can get the same effect with my own load tests, if not
I'll get in touch.


Thanks again,
Geoff
- -- 
UPLEX Systemoptimierung
Schwanenwik 24
22087 Hamburg
http://uplex.de/
Mob: +49-176-63690917
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=IqWf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----