Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:00:49 +0200
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
Subject:   Re: Varnish proxy goes catatonic under heavy load
Message-ID:  <20141106100049.GO53947@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <545B4310.7000403@freebsd.org>
References:  <545A0EB4.4090404@freebsd.org> <545A117B.4080606@multiplay.co.uk> <545B1F2A.5010203@FreeBSD.org> <20141106083153.GK53947@kib.kiev.ua> <545B4310.7000403@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:44:48AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Hmmm.... well, our theory about this is that we see the effect when the
> total traffic is sufficiently high that we're hitting the network
> capacity, and dropping some packets.  (The actual traffic load on an
> individual server was big, but nothing like saturating the network. It's
> the total that was maxing out our uplink to the Internet.)
Gathering information according to
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug-deadlocks.html
would eliminate most doubts.

So, do you use UFS ?

> 
> We simulated the effect by sticking a test box on a 10Mb/s connection
> and threw a lot of requests for a largeish (1MB) file at it.  The packet
> loss seems to be important -- presumably it's clogging up the available
> mbufs with old packets that haven't received an ACK yet, so have to be
> held onto in case they need to be resent.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141106100049.GO53947>