is 2.0.2 not as efficient as 1.1.2 was?
alex at path101.com
Wed Mar 11 08:28:24 CET 2009
Barry, Demitrious - did you ever find a solution here?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Barry Abrahamson <barry at automattic.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <37EADDE4-A23A-4204-B04A-46D47D348D7A at automattic.com>,
>> Barry Abraham
>> son writes:
>>>> This week we upgraded to 2.0.2 and are using varnish's back end &
>>>> director configuration for the same work. What we are seeing is
>>>> 2.0.2 holds about 60% of the objects in the same amount of cache
>>>> as 1.1.2 did (we tried tcmalloc, jemalloc, and mmap.)
>> Your description does not make it obvious to me what is causing this
>> but one candidate could be the stored hash-string, in particular if
>> your URLS are long.
>> The new purge code (likely included in 2.0.3, but already available
>> in -trunk) dispenses with the need to store the hash-string so theory
>> could be tested.
> Upgraded to trunk, didn't help.
> Barry Abrahamson | Systems Wrangler | Automattic
> Blog: http://barry.wordpress.com
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at projects.linpro.no
More information about the varnish-misc