echo "stats" shows the following : cmd_set 3,000,000,000 evicted_unfetched 2,800,000,000 evictions 2,900,000,000
This looks super abusive to me. What, is that 6% utilization of data in cache? On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > You could comb through stats looking for things like evicted_unfetched, > unbalanced slab classes, etc. > > 1.4.31 with `-o modern` can either make a huge improvement in memory > efficiency or a marginal one. I'm unaware of it being worse. > > Just something to consider if cost is your concern. > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016, Joseph Grasser wrote: > > > We are running 1.4.13 on wheezy. > > In the environment I am looking at there is positive correlation between > gets and puts. The ration is something like 10 Gets : 15 Puts. The eviction > spikes are also occurring > > at peak put times ( which kind of makes senses with the mem pressure ). > I think the application is some kind of report generation tool - it's hard > to say, my visibility into > > the team stuff is pretty low right now as I am a new hire. > > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:34 PM, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > > What version are you on and what're your startup options, out of > > curiosity? > > > > A lot of the more recent features can help with memory efficiency, > for > > what it's worth. > > > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016, Joseph Grasser wrote: > > > > > > > > No problem, I'm trying cut down on cost. We're currently using a > dedicated model which works for us on a technical level but is expensive > (within budget but still > > expensive). > > > > > > We are experiencing weird spikes in evictions but I think that > is the result of developers abusing the service. > > > > > > Tbh I don't know what to make of the evictions yet. I'm gong to > dig into it on Monday though. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 2016 1:55 AM, "Ripduman Sohan" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 27, 2016 1:46 AM, "dormando" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thank you for the tips guys! > > > > > > > > The limiting factor for us is actually > memory utilization. We are using the default configuration on sizable ec2 > nodes and pulling only > > > like 20k qps per node. Which is fine > > > > because we need to shard the key set over x > servers to handle the mem req (30G) per server. > > > > > > > > I should have looked into that before > posting. > > > > > > > > I am really curious about network saturation > though. 200k gets at 1mb per get is a lot of traffic... how can you hit > that mark without > > > saturation? > > > > > > Most people's keys are a lot smaller. In > multiget tests with 40 byte keys > > > I can pull 20 million+ keys/sec out of the > server. probably less than > > > 10gbps at that rate too. Tends to cap between > 600k and 800k/s if you need > > > to do a full roundtrip per key fetch. limited > by the NIC. Lots of tuning > > > required to get around that. > > > > > > > > > I think (but may be wrong) the 200K TPS result is based on 1K > values. Dormando should be able to correct me. > > > > > > 20K TPS does seem a little low though. If you're bound by > memory set size have you thought of the cost/tradeoff benefits of using > dedicated servers for your > > memcache? > > > I'm quite interested to find out more about what you're trying > to optimise. Is it minimising number of servers, maximising query rate, > both, none, etc? > > > > > > Feel free to reach out directly if you can't share this > publicly. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic > in the Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/memcached/la-0fH1UzyA/unsubscribe. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email > to [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "memcached" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "memcached" group. > > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/memcached/la-0fH1UzyA/unsubscribe. > > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "memcached" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/memcached/la-0fH1UzyA/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
