Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Aha! Reproduced!
KEY 8AD0F1F875004EE3313322F7E0302E5F
GET http://192.168.11.2/test.64m
STORE_PENDING NOT_IN_MEMORY SWAPOUT_NONE PING_DONE
CACHABLE,DISPATCHED,VALIDATED
LV:1265803922 LU:1265803947 LM:1246070610 EX:-1
4 locks, 1 clients, 2 refs
Swap Dir -1, File 0XFFFFFFFF
inmem_lo: 0
inmem_hi: 11600487
swapout: 0 bytes queued
Client #0, 0x0
copy_offset: 11583488
seen_offset: 11583488
copy_size: 4096
flags:
Using: wget --rate-limit=200k <64mb test file> with the above storage config,
through a localhost proxy,
sees Lusca slowly grow the memory usage; I wonder why it's doing that.
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:18
The object memory in use is still very high. I wonder what is going on.
Ok, storeSwapOutMaintainMemObject() is the key here. The object is considered
swapout'able but it obviously
won't be swapped out just yet. storeSwapOutObjectBytesOnDisk() returns 0. Since
it thinks the object may make
it on disk at some point but there's 0 bytes on disk. Therefore new_mem_lo is
set to 0.
I wonder what the correct behaviour will be.
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:24
I've been again thinking about it briefly. The problem is there's no current
way to
determine _when_ an object _may_ be delay swap-outable. It may fail the swapout
because of load (does it retry in this case?) ; it may fail the swapout because
of
the size limitations and this behaviour delays the swapout until it meets the
minimum
object size.
What about defining a "maximum object size for all cachedirs" which is then the
watermark for determining whether an in-memory object is ever going to be
swapped
out? That'll fix -this- issue but it won't fix the "disk is too slow to swap
out the
object fast enough" issue. I'm under the impression that the latter is
addressed by
having the object read from the network as fast as the slowest client -
including the
swapout "client".
Hm! More food for thought!
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 26 Mar 2010 at 2:03
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2010 at 12:16