Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51349 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2009 21:28:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Jul 2009 21:28:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 35230 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2009 21:29:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 35162 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2009 21:29:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 35153 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jul 2009 21:29:39 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:29:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mjtice@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.244 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.244] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.244) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:29:31 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so802410ana.39 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=YHjNf3ozsl8s3EFFxvix8eEK8WbMyzm+9WpeELZ9jHs=; b=FvAfz4WU6NP3eISwxjrLnA6I8XymYBreJsa2sAEVDdnxoHoaKrsgOH1oIW8vWyA8mW keV7VRTwKPXEdRr7pmeHpqakjbMWo39/bOy6KcE6TSMYws6eJMEGlNPIFeNqxw+7ibCd zzRbmQmjJmnkpM+z/ZJ2xk1VihSwsKrFAQVHI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=U+DRYcSBh273LCKspGHX2673iACl2UKyn3hGhy70mHoNk1sgqrQzLjlas1n5I2/30Q StGK+SW8u1PFeFmROOF6dEMwqs0/jRvykgPZa6HHHCsjj5WITrWSg8T4ZkgwkKvm6YJ4 H6x3eTQkB1PPm7BNW4mTjoB6pqGpMNjomBRsY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.241.17 with SMTP id o17mr3647584anh.134.1247952550728; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:29:10 -0600 Message-ID: From: Matthew Tice To: users@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368e24567b9323046f019854 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Subject: [users@httpd] High load using memcache and 9G tmpfs --0016368e24567b9323046f019854 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Currently we're migrating our static node cluster from 32bit OpenSuse 10.3 using the disk_cache_module on a 2G tmpfs to a 64bit CentOS 5.3 using the disk_cache module on a 9G tmpfs. After pushing these CentOS nodes into production (and consequently adding many more requests) we started seeing a load spike on these systems. Preliminary tests have shown that using a 2G (maybe 3G - still testing that one) tmpfs on the same CentOS node doesn't have the same high load. I'm not sure if this is a bug with tmpfs, Apache/disk_cache, CentOS, or what. Any insight into this strange problem would be appreciated. Thanks, Matt --0016368e24567b9323046f019854 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,

Currently we're migrating our static node cluster from 32= bit OpenSuse 10.3 using the disk_cache_module on a 2G tmpfs to a 64bit Cent= OS 5.3 using the disk_cache module on a 9G tmpfs.=A0 After pushing these Ce= ntOS nodes into production (and consequently adding many more requests) we = started seeing a load spike on these systems.=A0 Preliminary tests have sho= wn that using a 2G (maybe 3G - still testing that one) tmpfs on the same Ce= ntOS node doesn't have the same high load.=A0 I'm not sure if this = is a bug with tmpfs, Apache/disk_cache, CentOS, or what.=A0 Any insight int= o this strange problem would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt
--0016368e24567b9323046f019854--