trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lerner, Steve" <>
Subject RE: proxy.config.cache.ram_cache.size query from eBay
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:28:23 GMT

Thanks for responding. Answers are below:

please provide more information:
1, ATS version: 5.1.1

2, object size setting: 8000
traffic_line -r proxy.config.cache.min_average_object_size

3. mem dump info: I attached traffic.out with frequency of 1 second from startup to hitting
102G (even though RAM is set to 64)

Thanks in advance!


Steve Lerner | Sr. Member of Technical Staff, Network Engineering | M 212 495 9212 |<>
| Skype: steve.lerner
[Description: logo]

From: Yongming Zhao []
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: proxy.config.cache.ram_cache.size query from eBay

please provide more information:
1, ATS version

2, object size setting:
traffic_line -r proxy.config.cache.min_average_object_size

3, mem dump info:
and attach the result from traffic.out.

- Yongming Zhao 赵永明

在 2014年11月14日,上午10:40,Lerner, Steve <<>>

Hi gang- Phil Sorber referred me to this list.

We are setting up clusters of Apache Traffic Server to beef up the front end of our image
services which are… large in terms of volume… to say the least.
We hope to be the big users of ATS and be a strong reference customer- so any help with is
Our first test cluster consistes of 23 machines, ubuntu12.04, Intel(R) 2x Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670
v2 @ 2.50GHz, 128G ram, 95T disk

Here is our query:

We are setting records.config as: CONFIG proxy.config.cache.ram_cache.size INT 64G

But we find that trafficserver ignores this limit and grows at the default rate of 1MB RAM
/ 1GB disk.

Example of a current process:

traffic_line -r proxy.config.cache.ram_cache.size returns 68,719,476,736
Which is about 64GB- correct!

But looking at the process:

86050 nobody    20   0  108g 102g 4912 S   54 81.3   1523:33 /ebay/local/trafficserver/bin/traffic_server
-M --httpport 80:fd=7

So basically we’ve set the process to only consume 64GB but its consuming 108GB…

Does anyone have any ideas on why this happens or a way to fix it?
We want to have constrained RAM but tons of disk- we’d much rather have the cache serve
from disk then start swapping RAM

Thanks in advance,


Steve Lerner | Sr. Member of Technical Staff, Network Engineering | M 212 495 9212 |<>
| Skype: steve.lerner

View raw message