Connections dropped under load
George Georgovassilis
g.georgovassilis at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 01:09:19 CET 2011
Many thanks for the pointer!
If I understand this correctly, there are some implications following
session_linger:
1. High values require also large thread pools to make up for the
lingering sessions ?
2. Low values are safer but may result in increased CPU usage ?
3. The effectiveness of session_linger depends on the network latency:
if requests are piped in at a slow rate more sessions are locked up waiting?
If 3 is correct then session_linger sounds like a dangerous toy, because
I can't really control the network latency.
Regards,
G.
On 06.01.2011 01:00, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message<4D250296.2000601 at gmail.com>, George Georgovassilis writes:
>
>> 1. The benchmark replicates an expected real-life sequence of requests
>> and workload from a single IP (namely a corporate web-proxy), thus
>> labelling it "synthetic" does it no justice :-)
> Well, that depends on your proxy more than anything else, but I'll
> take your word for it.
>
>> 2. If you leave "session_linger" out of the configuration (so not
>> mentioning it at all) the benchmark still hangs. Whatever the default
>> value is, it doesn't work and I explicitly need to reduce it to 20.
> The default is 50msec.
>
> You can always get the full spiel, inclusive the default value
> from the CLI:
>
> param.show session_linger
> 200 1031
> session_linger 50 [ms]
> Default is 50
> How long time the workerthread lingers on the
> session to see if a new request appears right
> away.
> If sessions are reused, as much as half of all
> reuses happen within the first 100 msec of the
> previous request completing.
> Setting this too high results in worker threads
> not doing anything for their keep, setting it too
> low just means that more sessions take a detour
> around the waiter.
>
> NB: We do not know yet if it is a good idea to
> change this parameter, or if the default value is
> even sensible. Caution is advised, and feedback
> is most welcome.
>
>
More information about the varnish-misc
mailing list