Search Results

Search found 32 results on 2 pages for 'siege'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • Let varnish send old data from cache while it's fetching a new one?

    - by mark
    I'm caching dynamically generated pages (PHP-FPM, NGINX) and have varnish in front of them, this works very well. However, once the cache timeout is reached, I see this: new client requests page varnish recognizes the cache timeout client waits varnish fetches new page from backend varnish delivers new page to the client (and has page cached, too, for the next request which gets it instantly) What I would like to do is: client requests page varnish recognizes the timeout varnish delivers old page to the client varnish fetches new page from backend and puts it into the cache In my case it's not site where outdated information is such a big problem, especially not when we're talking about cache timeout from a few minutes. However, I don't want punish user to wait in line and rather deliver something immediate. Is that possible in some way? To illustrate, here's a sample output of running siege 5 minutes against my server which was configured to cache for one minute: HTTP/1.1,200, 1.97, 12710,/,1,2013-06-24 00:21:06 ... HTTP/1.1,200, 1.88, 12710,/,1,2013-06-24 00:21:20 ... HTTP/1.1,200, 1.93, 12710,/,1,2013-06-24 00:22:08 ... HTTP/1.1,200, 1.89, 12710,/,1,2013-06-24 00:22:22 ... HTTP/1.1,200, 1.94, 12710,/,1,2013-06-24 00:23:10 ... HTTP/1.1,200, 1.91, 12709,/,1,2013-06-24 00:23:23 ... HTTP/1.1,200, 1.93, 12710,/,1,2013-06-24 00:24:12 ... I left out the hundreds of requests running in 0.02 or so. But it still concerns me that there are going to be users having to wait almost 2 seconds for their raw HTML. Can't we do any better here? (I came across Varnish send while cache , it sounded similar but not exactly what I'm trying to do.)

    Read the article

  • Does Mac OS X throttle the RATE of socket creation?

    - by pbhogan
    This may seem programming related, but this is an OS question. I'm writing a small high performance daemon that takes thousands of connections per second. It's working fine on Linux (specifically Ubuntu 9.10 on EC2). On Mac OS X if I throw a few thousand connections at it (roughly about 16350) in a benchmark that simply opens a connection, does it's thing and closes the connection, then the benchmark program hangs for several seconds waiting for a socket to become available before continuing (or timing out in the process). I used both Apache Bench as well as Siege (to make sure it wasn't the benchmark application). So why/how is Mac OS X limiting the RATE at which sockets can be used, and can I stop it from doing this? Or is there something else going on? I know there is a file descriptor limit, but I'm not hitting that. There is no error on accepting a socket, it's simply hangs for a while after the first (roughly) 16000, waiting -- I assume -- for the OS to release a socket. This shouldn't happen since all prior the sockets are closed at that point. They're supposed to come available at the rate they're closed, and do on Ubuntu, but there seems to be some kind of multi (5-10?) second delay on Mac OS X. I tried tweaking with ulimit every-which-way. Nada.

    Read the article

  • Does Mac OS X throttle the RATE of socket creation?

    - by pbhogan
    This may seem programming related, but this is an OS question. I'm writing a small high performance daemon that takes thousands of connections per second. It's working fine on Linux (specifically Ubuntu 9.10 on EC2). On Mac OS X if I throw a few thousand connections at it (roughly about 16350) in a benchmark that simply opens a connection, does it's thing and closes the connection, then the benchmark program hangs for several seconds waiting for a socket to become available before continuing (or timing out in the process). I used both Apache Bench as well as Siege (to make sure it wasn't the benchmark application). So why/how is Mac OS X limiting the RATE at which sockets can be used, and can I stop it from doing this? Or is there something else going on? I know there is a file descriptor limit, but I'm not hitting that. There is no error on accepting a socket, it's simply hangs for a while after the first (roughly) 16000, waiting -- I assume -- for the OS to release a socket. This shouldn't happen since all prior the sockets are closed at that point. They're supposed to come available at the rate they're closed, and do on Ubuntu, but there seems to be some kind of multi (5-10?) second delay on Mac OS X. I tried tweaking with ulimit every-which-way. Nada.

    Read the article

  • Auto-organized / smart inventory system?

    - by VeXe
    for the past week I've been working on an inventory system with Unity3D. At first I got help from the guys at Design3 but it wasn't too long till we split path, because I really didn't like the way they did their code, it didn't have any smell of OOP whatsoever. I took it further steps ahead - items take more than one slot, advanced placement system (items tries their best to find the best close fit), local mouse system (mouse gets trapped in active bag area), etc. Here's a demo of my work. What we would like to have in our game, is an auto-organizing feature - not auto-sort. We want this feature because our inventory's going to be in 'real-time' - not like in Resident Evil 1,2,3 etc where you would pause the game and do things in your inventory. Now imagine your self in a sticky situation surrounded by zombies, and you don't have bullets, you look around, you see that there are bullets nearby on the ground, so you go for them and try to pick them up, but they don't fit! you look at your inventory and find out that if you reorganize some of the items, it will fit! - now the player - in that situation doesn't have time to reorganize because he's surrounded with zombies and will die if he stops and organizes the inventory to make space (remember inventory in real-time, no pausing) - wouldn't it be nice for that to happen automatically? - Yes! (I believe this has been implemented in some games like Dungeon siege or something, so sure it's doable) take a look at this picture for example: Yes, so if you auto-sort the issue you will get your spaces but it's bad because: 1- Expensive: it doesn't need a whole sort operation to free those spaces, in the first picture, just slide the red item at the bottom to the very left, and you get the same spaces that you got from the auto-sort. 2- It's annoying to the player: "Who the F told you to re-order my stuff?" I'm not asking for "How to write the code" for this, I'm just asking for some guidance, where to look, what algorithms are involved? Is this something related to graphs and shortest path stuff? I hope not cuz I didn't manage to continue my college studies :/ But even if it is, just tell me and I will learn the stuff related. Notice there could be more than just one solution. So I guess the first thing I have to do is figure out if the situation is 'solvable' - if I know how to determine if a situation is solvable or not, then I can 'solve' it. I just need to know the conditions that makes it 'solvable'. And I believe there must be some algorithm/data structure for this. Here's a pic for more than one solution of trying to fit a 1x3 item: The arrows show just one of the solutions, but if you look you will find more than one. This is what I ultimately not auto-sorting but find a solution and applying it. Note that if I spend time on it I will come up with a way to solve it, but it wouldn't be the best way, it's like, holding a car wheel with your feet instead of your hands! XD Or just like trying to solve an issue that requires arrays, but you're not yet aware of their existence! So what is the right approach to this? Hope somebody helps, thanks a lot in advance :)

    Read the article

  • PHP-FPM Pool, Child Processes and Memory Consumption

    - by Jhilke Dai
    In my PHP-FPM configuration I have 3 Pools, the eg: Config is: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; Pool 1 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; [www1] user = www group = www listen = /tmp/php-fpm1.sock; listen.backlog = -1 listen.owner = www listen.group = www listen.mode = 0666 pm = dynamic pm.max_children = 40 pm.start_servers = 6 pm.min_spare_servers = 6 pm.max_spare_servers = 12 pm.max_requests = 250 slowlog = /var/log/php/$pool.log.slow request_slowlog_timeout = 5s request_terminate_timeout = 120s rlimit_files = 131072 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; Pool 2 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; [www2] user = www group = www listen = /tmp/php-fpm2.sock; listen.backlog = -1 listen.owner = www listen.group = www listen.mode = 0666 pm = dynamic pm.max_children = 40 pm.start_servers = 6 pm.min_spare_servers = 6 pm.max_spare_servers = 12 pm.max_requests = 250 slowlog = /var/log/php/$pool.log.slow request_slowlog_timeout = 5s request_terminate_timeout = 120s rlimit_files = 131072 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; Pool 3 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; [www3] user = www group = www listen = /tmp/php-fpm3.sock; listen.backlog = -1 listen.owner = www listen.group = www listen.mode = 0666 pm = dynamic pm.max_children = 40 pm.start_servers = 6 pm.min_spare_servers = 6 pm.max_spare_servers = 12 pm.max_requests = 250 slowlog = /var/log/php/$pool.log.slow request_slowlog_timeout = 5s request_terminate_timeout = 120s rlimit_files = 131072 I calculated the pm.max_children processes according to some example calculations on the web like 40 x 40 Mb = 1600 Mb. I have separated 4 GB of RAM for PHP, now according to the calculations 40 Child Processes via one socket, and I have total of 3 sockets in my Nginx and FPM configuration. My doubt is about the amount of memory consumption by those child processes. I tried to create high load in the server via httperf hog and siege but I could not calculate the accurate memory usage by all the PHP processes (other processes like MySQL and Nginx were also running). And all the sockets were in use, So, I seek guidance from anyone who have done this before or know how exactly the pm.max_children in PHP Works. Since I have 3 Pools/sockets with 40 child processes does that count to 3 x 40 x 40 Mb of Memory usage ? or it is just like 40 Max. Child processes sharing 3 sockets (and the total memory usage is just 40 x 40 Mb) ?

    Read the article

  • HAProxy causing delay

    - by user1221444
    I am trying to configure HAProxy to do load balancing for a custom webserver I created. Right now I am noticing an increasing delay with HAProxy as the size of the return message increases. For example, I ran four different tests, here are the results: Response 15kb through HAProxy: Avg. response time: .34 secs Transacation rate: 763 trans/sec Throughput: 11.08 MB/sec Response 2kb through HAProxy: Avg. response time: .08 secs Transaction rate: 1171 trans / sec Throughput: 2.51 MB/sec Response 15kb directly to server: Avg. response time: .11 sec Transaction rate: 1046 trans/sec throughput: 15.20 MB/sec Response 2kb directly to server: Avg. Response time: .05 secs Transaction rate: 1158 trans/sec Throughput: 2.48 MB/sec All transactions are HTTP requests. As you can see, there seems to be a much bigger difference between response times for when the response is bigger, than when it is smaller. I understand there will be a slight delay when using HAProxy. Not sure if it matters, but the test itself was run using siege. And during the test there was only one server behind the HAProxy(the same that was used in the direct to server tests). Here is my haproxy.config file: global log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 notice maxconn 10000 user haproxy group haproxy daemon #debug defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull retries 3 option redispatch option httpclose maxconn 10000 contimeout 10000 clitimeout 50000 srvtimeout 50000 balance roundrobin stats enable stats uri /stats listen lb1 10.1.10.26:80 maxconn 10000 server app1 10.1.10.200:8080 maxconn 5000 I couldn't find much in terms of options in this file that would help my problem. I have heard suggestions that I may have to adjust a few of my sysctl settings. I could not find a lot of information on this however, most documentation is for Linux 2.4 and 2.6 on the sysctl stuff, I am running 3.2(Ubuntu server 12.04), which seems to auto tuning, so I have no clue what I should or shouldn't be changing. Most settings changes I tried had no effect or a negative effect on performance. Just a notice, this is a very preliminary test, and my hope is that at deployment time, my HAProxy will be able to balance 10k-20k requests/sec to many servers, so if anyone could provide information to help me reach that goal, it would be much appreciated. Thank you very much for any information you can provide. And if you need anymore information from me please let me know, I will get you anything I can.

    Read the article

  • mod evasive not working properly on ubuntu 10.04

    - by Joe Hopfgartner
    I have an ubuntu 10.04 server where I installed mod_evasive using apt-get install libapache2-mod-evasive I already tried several configurations, the result stays the same. The blocking does work, but randomly. I tried with low limis and long blocking periods as well as short limits. The behaviour I expect is that I can request websites until either page or site limit is reached per given interval. After that I expect to be blocked until I did not make another request for as long as the block period. However the behaviour is that I can request sites and after a while I get random 403 blocks, which increase and decrase in percentage, however they are very scattered. This is an output of siege, so you get an idea: HTTP/1.1 200 0.09 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.08 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.08 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.11 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.08 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.09 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.09 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.09 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.08 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.08 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.10 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.08 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.09 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.10 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 403 0.09 secs: 242 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.09 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.09 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.10 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt HTTP/1.1 200 0.08 secs: 75 bytes ==> /robots.txt The exac limits in place during this test run were: DOSHashTableSize 3097 DOSPageCount 10 DOSSiteCount 100 DOSPageInterval 10 DOSSiteInterval 10 DOSBlockingPeriod 120 DOSLogDir /var/log/mod_evasive DOSEmailNotify ***@gmail.com DOSWhitelist 127.0.0.1 So I would expect to be blocked at least 120 seconds after being blocked once. Any ideas aobut this? I also tried adding my configuration at different places (vhost, server config, directory context) and with of without ifmodule directive... This doesnt change anything.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2