Transient storage killing memory
mark.staudinger at nyi.net
Tue Nov 29 17:26:50 CET 2016
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:09:04 -0500, Niall Murphy
<niall.murphy at sparwelt.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:09:08 -0500
> Mark Staudinger <mark.staudinger at nyi.net> wrote:
>> It might also be useful to capture some varnishlog output and
>> determine what objects are being stored in the Transient pool, and
>> whether or not your "shortlived" parameter, or default grace value
>> needs to be adjusted. Even if you do determine you need to do some
>> things differently here that will prevent the Transient pool from
>> growing beyond your ideal limit, IMO it's a good idea to keep this
>> limited anyway.
> Hi Mark,
> I took a look into ttl < 10s objects and saw that they are requests we
> intentionally apply either "max-age=0, private" or "no-cache, private"
> to. However their storage field is still "malloc Transient", and
> transient storage usage only appears to be going up.
> Any ideas how to investigate further?
> It's varnish 5.0.0-1, and this didn't happen with 4.1, thought there
> may well have been configuration changes since then.
It's not clear if you actually wish to cache these requests.
The best way to proceed would be to look at the output of varnishlog for a
few sample requests, and see what the values are for the "TTL" log entry,
and make sure they match the desired settings/behavior. Not that if you
change TTL/grace/keep settings during the request, there will be multiple
entries in the log. Here's a sample entry for an object that was not
-- TTL VCL 0 0 0 1480436502
More information about the varnish-misc