Varnish child killed

[Jean-Francois Laurens]

Thanks Ken,
I updated the vm.min_free_kbytes to 128M and increased the cli_timeout to
40.

No there was no errors from any parts of the HW (ram,disk ...)

Jef

Le 22/04/11 03:06, « Ken Brownfield » a écrit :

> 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 ³Varnish
>> child killed².
>> 
>> 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 can¹t 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 <tel:%2B41%20%280%2958%20236%2081%2063>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> varnish-misc mailing list
>>> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
>>> http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> varnish-misc mailing list
>>> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
>>> http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20110427/b2d4ebc2/attachment-0003.html>