Varnish caching issues, cache size, expires, cache resets, whatsgoing on?
apokalyptik at apokalyptik.com
Mon May 12 19:22:40 CEST 2008
Thanks Brian, and Pablo, Turns out I was not entirely correct. A
colleague of mine had been making VCL and command line parameter changes
(to troubleshoot this same issue.) So the running parameters were not
the same. Also even after the two machines have been brought into sync
on VCL, and command line varnish usage the one machine is still 0.2 to
0.3 seconds faster. The difference has to be somewhere else.
On a happy note after tcmalloc varnish has stopped crashing every couple
of hours. We're just going to be hitting peak traffic for the week here
in a bit, but so far so good.
I took some graphs from munin and have made them available to look at if
you are at all curious to look.
Thanks very much for your help!
Demitrious Kelly wrote:
> Also, interestingly, the response is higher than our other server (we
> have two handling a split load, what I detailed was just one of them,
> the other is left alone while we tweak this one.) A 1x1 pixel image
> request coming from the original (which crashes all the time) gets sent
> in 0.08x seconds, and this one with tcmalloc in 0.11x seconds. I
> definitely consider 0.03 seconds a price worth stability, but its an
> interesting observation nonetheless
More information about the varnish-misc