Best Practices - Suggestions Request
anup at iamcool.net
Tue Jun 26 12:23:46 CEST 2007
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <4680C2E3.2010108 at iamcool.net>, Anup Shukla writes:
>> I understand that running both services on the same server is probably a
>> bad idea, but due to time constraints i had no option but to go ahead
>> with the current setup.
> It is not an obviously bad idea, and in many cases it is likely to
> work quite well.
> If it works for you, be happy about the saved hardware :-)
That makes me feel a lot better now. Thank you. :)
> It's not much to go from, but here are some ideas:
> 1. Do you have enough storage space ? By default Varnish takes a
> fixed fraction of the free space in /tmp, that may not be enough.
> Use the "-s" argument to specify a different directory and/or how
> much space you want to use.
I have put the cache file (or whatever its called as) under /cache/varnish
the parameters are .................... -s
Disk space should not be a problem as there is plenty available.
Initially i had kept the size to 8G, but changed it 2G later.
I doubt if that has any affect apart from being able to store not more
than 2G of cached content.
The only reason i changed it to 2G was that, i noticed the size of
varnishd process kept on increasing.
Now, i am not a Linux expert so did not have the knowledge about the
whole idea of using disk space as RAM.
However a bit of Google search cleared up that my fears were baseless.
Or is it that there is a relation between the process size and the
on-disk cache file? ( I hope this is not out-of-place)
Did not change it back to 8G though, it works fine for me with the way
its configured. ;)
I will keep an eye on the process to see if i can find anything specific
to relate to the problem of "Varnish dying in 7-10 days".
Do i need to check for something specific?
>> Sorry, if i have asked too many questions at one go.
> You're welcome :-)
Much appreciated. Thanks again. :)
More information about the varnish-misc