* Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >* Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
> >>Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >>>3.0.STABLE25 is showing the following behaviour during normal operation:
> >>Hi Ralf,
> >> Thank you for all this, but I'm wondering why you are putting so
> >>much work into 3.0?
> >
> >3.1 sucks even more? See my other bug reports! That stuff is crashing
> >all over the place. Need to get some stability here :)
>
> :(
For me it's more like :((((((((((((((((((((((((((
> >I COULD run 3.2 if you like.
>
> :)
m(
okok
> >OK, but for such a long time?
>
> Yes. Depending on the cache size. Some people have reported it taking
> IIRC a dozen minutes or more for GB+ caches.
>
> If I'm reading those graph scales right your time scale was ~20
> minutes before the server maxed out to overload?
It didn't max out, it restarted squid
> Ah so 99% unknown operations inside Squid.
>
> The 24K reads + 24K writes equates to (@4KB pages) roughly 6.25Mbps
> in IO each way. Assuming that the network traffic takes up a portion
> up to ~1/2 thats still a lot of disk IO to sustain.
>
> Does your cache.log show any indication of a crash leading up to all this?
Not really. I usually get mails informing me about a crash with a
backtrace and a few lines of log
-- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962 ralf.hildebrandt@charite.de | http://www.charite.deReceived on Wed Aug 11 2010 - 13:40:30 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 11 2010 - 12:00:02 MDT