Varnish child killed

[Ken Brownfield]

It was likely killed because the child process didn't respond to the parent
process within cli_timeout seconds.

Two suggestions:
 * increase vm.min_free_kbytes to 64M or 128M (I use the latter)
 * increase cli_timeout to 40-60 seconds

Then record 'vmstat' and 'ps' output, so you can go back and see what was
happening on the machine at the time the child is killed.  For example, did
something start swapping 1G of RAM, and swap thrash caused the child to be
slow to respond)?  Was there an ECC error?  Etc.

My guess is that the two settings above will put you in a better place.
 Also, good to make sure your lru isn't too high, but it looks like you're
using the (fine) default.
-- 
kb



On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 15:59, Jean-Francois Laurens <
jean-francois.laurens at rts.ch> wrote:

>  Please do not overlook the object of the email which is actually “Varnish
> child killed”.
>
> For the explanation of the hitratio: some tests are running and half of the
> misses are requests with cachekillers on purpose.
>
> Would anybody please help on understanding why this child process get
> killed ?
>
>
> Le 21/04/11 19:41, « Simon Lyall » a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Jean-Francois Laurens wrote:
> > 2. hitratio
> > My hit ratio is pretty low around 50%.
> > It used to be around 70% with the version 2.0.6 and dropped down to 50%.
> > I can’t explain it as what was changed was only :
> > In vcl_fetch, replace obj by beresp
> > Replace calls to pass or deliver by return(deliver) or return(pass)
>
> Is this for http://www.tsr.ch/ ?
>
> If your hit ratio is 60% with a million objects then something is very
> wrong. You have enough images there you should be well over 90% hits.
>
> Run "varnishlog -b"
>
> and see what your cache misses are ( or do look in your backend logs ).
>
>
> Jean-Francois Laurens
> Ingénieur Système Unix
> Resources et Développement
> Secteur Backend
> *RTS - Radio Télévision Suisse
> *Quai Ernest-Ansermet 20
> Case postale 234
> CH - 1211 Genève 8
> T +41 (0)58 236 81 63
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
> http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20110421/d758bf5b/attachment-0003.html>