Going to pushing out the change to 1 worker later today.
It's just become more of an exercise in understanding why it was behaving
that way.
Even under "high" load (in this case ~50 active_connections), the 3 socks
don't seem to be getting equal number of requests.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:29
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:03:59PM -0700, John Watson wrote:
>Well doesn't make sense when theres >4 concurrent requests
>At any given time there's around 12 active_connections, but sock-3 is
>still never being used
Can you see a difference with only one worker process?
Currently, dif
Well doesn't make sense when theres >4 concurrent requests
At any given time there's around 12 active_connections, but sock-3 is still
never being used
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM, John Watson wrote:
> O... that makes complete sense now.
>
> Had 4 workers.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Thu, Mar
O... that makes complete sense now.
Had 4 workers.
Thanks!
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:45:14AM -0700, John Watson wrote:
> >Was investigating some issues today when we noticed that least_conn
> wasn't
> >behaving as expected.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:45:14AM -0700, John Watson wrote:
>Was investigating some issues today when we noticed that least_conn wasn't
>behaving as expected.
>upstream backend {
> least_conn;
> server unix:/tmp/sock-1.sock;
> server unix:/tmp/sock-2.sock;
> server
Was investigating some issues today when we noticed that least_conn wasn't
behaving as expected.
upstream backend {
least_conn;
server unix:/tmp/sock-1.sock;
server unix:/tmp/sock-2.sock;
server unix:/tmp/sock-3.sock;
}
The expected behavior for 4 simultaneous requests it should distribut
