trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Carroll <>
Subject Re: Understanding ioBufAllocator behvaiour
Date Wed, 24 May 2017 21:32:38 GMT
I'll have to check the code, but I think it's possible for ram cache to use other sizes, if
the objects are small. The cache knows the approximate size of the object before reading and
IIRC gets an iobuf of roughly that size for the disk read. If the object goes in ram cache,
the iobuf is simply moved over to the ram cache.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 4:28:46 PM CDT, Sudheer Vinukonda <>
wrote:AFAIR, I don't think RAM Cache includes all ioBuf pools. It's typically the 1M (or may
be higher) pools only.
The rest of the lower sized ioBuf pools (especially, ioBuf-0 that's referenced here) are generally
used for various purposes such as session contexts, connection objects etc. And I don't believe
these pools are directly constrained or affected by RAM cache size parameter. They are simply
proportional to the peak amount of concurrent sessions that ATS handles.
Disclaimer : It's possible I may not be remembering correctly and it's been a while I looked
at this.
- Sudheer 
On May 24, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Kapil Sharma (kapsharm) <> wrote:

On May 24, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Dunkin, Nick <> wrote:
Hi again,    This is great stuff, but it leads me to believe that I’ve totally overestimated
my ram_cache.size setting.  And in fact, totally misunderstood the parameter.    Let me
see if I understand what you’ve explained:    If I expect 5 of my ioBufAllocators to be
in use during normal activity, then potentially I could see memory allocated to the level
of (5 x ram_cache.size)?  Because each ioBufAllocator is bounded by ram_cache.size?
No, not really. I guess my example which was intended as worst case example may have confused
things :)Let's differentiate between:“Allocated" Chunks: IO Buffer chunks that have been
allocated by the ioBufAllocator, but not all of them are actually being used in RAM Cache."In-use”
Chunks: Chunks that are in use in the RAM Cache, these are subset of the “allocated” chunks.“Free”
Chunks:  These contain the difference between the above two. When ioBufAllocator needs chunks
of a particular size pool, it will try get it from the free list. If not available, only then
new chunks are allocated from memory.Allocated Chunks = In-use Chunks + Free Chunks
When buffer chunk is “de-alloced” from RAM cache, it is put back into the free chunk pool. 
Ram Cache size parameter will limit the total “in-use” chunks, and this includes sum total
size of the “in-use" chunks from all 15 pools. In general your traffic pattern should fall
into steady state “plateau” such that all the “allocated” chunks doesn’t need to
grow. But yes, sum total size of allocated chunks >= Ram cache size parameter. So it is
best to keep some headroom in RAM.
I remember there was a way to dump the mem pools information  to traffic.out - maybe someone
in the list can help.
Hope this doesn’t confuse things more :)
(Terminology I used above may not reflect what’s in the code)

    In which case I need to reduce, or tune, my ram_cache.size by a factor of 5?    I have
a large ram_cache.size (100gb), assuming it was allocated to one large reserve of memory,
so I assume this understanding is naive?    Thanks again for all your assistance,    Nick
   From: "Kapil Sharma (kapsharm)" <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Understanding ioBufAllocator behvaiour    On plateauing - not necessarily;
we do see the memory consumption increasing continuously in our deployments as well. It depends
on the pattern of segment sizes over time.     ATS uses power of 2 allocators for memory
pool - there are 15 of those, ranging from 128bytes to 2M if my memory serves me right - and
these are per thread! ATS will choose an optimal allocator for the segments.    As Alan mentioned,
once chunk are allocated, they are never freed.    Here is a totally artificial example just
to make the point (please correct if my understanding is flawed): * the traffic pattern was
such that initially only 2M allocators were used then ATS will keep allocating 2M chunks until
RAM cache limit (lets say it is 64GB) is reached. * Now traffic pattern changed (smaller fragment
requests), and only 1M allocators are used, ATS will now keep allocating 1M chunks, again
capping at 64GB. But in the end ATS would have allocated 128GB well over RAM cache size limit….
      In the past a there was some prototype of reclaimable buffer support added in ATS,
but I believe it was removed in 7.0? Also there is recent discussion of adding jmalloc?   
On May 24, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Alan Carroll <> wrote:   
One issue is that memory never moves between the iobuf sizes. Once a chunk of memory is used
for a specific iobuf slot, it's there forever. But unless something is leaking, the total
size should eventually plateau, certainly within less than a day if you have a basically constant
load. There will be some growth due to blocks being kept in thread local allocation pools,
but again that should level in less time than you've run.       On Wednesday, May 24, 2017,
9:50:39 AM CDT, Dunkin, Nick <> wrote: 
Hi Alan,
This is 7.0.0
I only see this behavior on ioBufAllocator[0], [4] and [5].  The other ioBufAllocators’
usage looks as I would expect (i.e. allocated goes up then flat), so I was thinking it was
more likely something to do with my configuration or use-case.
I’d also just like to understand, at a high level, how the ioBufAllocators are used.
From: Alan Carroll <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:33 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Understanding ioBufAllocator behvaiour
Honestly it sounds like a leak. Can you specify which version of Traffic Server this is?
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 8:22:46 AM CDT, Dunkin, Nick <> wrote:
I have a load test that I’ve been running for a number of days now.  I’m using the memory
dump logging in traffic.out and I’m trying to understand how Traffic Server allocates and
reuses memory.  I’m still quite new to Traffic Server.
Nearly all of the memory traces look as I would expect, i.e. memory is allocated and reused
over the lifetime of the test.  However my readings from ioBufAllocator[0] show a continual
increase in allocated AND used.  I am attaching a graph.  (FYI – This graph covers approximately
3 days of continual load test.)
I would have expected to start seeing reuse in ioBufAllocator by now, like I do in the other
ioBufAllocators.  Can someone help me understand what I’m seeing?
Many thanks,
Nick Dunkin
Nick Dunkin
Principal Engineer
o:   678.258.4071
4375 River Green Pkwy # 100, Duluth, GA 30096, USA

View raw message