g sleep within the Perl program.
Perform query.
sleep 10;
perform query.
sleep 10;
Hope this helps,
~Kelly W. Black
-Original Message-
From: heath boutwell [mailto:heathboutwell@;yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Thread Thrashing and 3.
After a weekend of pretty heavy usuage (150-200 queries per sec) I can say the
"thread thrashing" has been fixed with the latest binary.
Our load averages however, are still 2-3x what they were with the older binary.
Even when mysql isn't being queried at all (when apache is shut down) the load
a
Try compiling form source instead of running binary.
~K Black
-Original Message-
From: Mark [mailto:admin@;asarian-host.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:33 PM
To: heath boutwell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thread Thrashing and 3.23.53a
- Original Message -
From
- Original Message -
From: "heath boutwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Thread Thrashing and 3.23.53a
> Aren't these just aborted clients? When you upgraded
Can anyone that was experiencing the thread thrashing
problems with the other binaries confirm that this has
been with resolved with 53a?
Yes. At least for us. We can again do 3,000+ qps. The 'out of sync'
errors were completely separate issue related to PHP.
Pre
Aren't these just aborted clients? When you upgraded before did mysql bring
the server to its knees or just yield many aborted clients/connects? Any idea
what your show processlist looks like when this is happening?
Before mine was flooded with a ton of processes like this:
| 17546 | root| loca
- Original Message -
From: "heath boutwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Thread Thrashing and 3.23.53a
> If you stick with 53a let us know what you see. Oth
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Zawodny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "heath boutwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:06 AM
Subject: R
Hi.
On Wed 2002-10-30 at 10:20:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Heath, I once had similar symptoms when my DNS resolving had problems
> >and all new connections "slept" for some seconds while they were
> >waiting for an response. My work-around was to use --skip-name-resolve
> >until the DNS
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:20:05AM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
> >Heath, I once had similar symptoms when my DNS resolving had problems
> >and all new connections "slept" for some seconds while they were
> >waiting for an response. My work-around was to use --skip-name-resolve
> >until the DNS pro
>Heath, I once had similar symptoms when my DNS resolving had problems
>and all new connections "slept" for some seconds while they were
>waiting for an response. My work-around was to use --skip-name-resolve
>until the DNS problem was solved.
Benjamin,
Thanks for the suggestion but the connectio
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:17:44AM +0100, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Allow me to disagree. Although most often the symptoms you cite are a
> sign that the operation is disk-bound, they are more a sign of
> blocking per se, of which the most common cause is disk operation. In
> the above c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 06:06, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 05:56:52AM +0100, Mark wrote:
> >
> > Is this all true? Bummer. :( I just upgraded to 3.23.53 (from
> > .49). I cannot afford to get these huge load averages on my news
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Thread Thrashing and 3.23.53a
>
>
> > Jeremy,
> >
> > Thanks for mytop. Its a great tool and its been a
> > great help in diagnosing
>
> MYTOP reports key eff at 98.30%
>
> +--+---+
> | Variable_name| Value |
> +--+---+
> | Aborted_clients | 58|
> | Aborted_connects | 6 |
> | Bytes_received | 281234326 |
>
Hi.
On Tue 2002-10-29 at 16:01:00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:56:04PM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
[...]
> > Load average of 1.5 seems high when we are only averaging 14 queries
> > per sec (nothing else going crazy running on the box)
> >
> >procs
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 05:56:52AM +0100, Mark wrote:
>
> Is this all true? Bummer. :( I just upgraded to 3.23.53 (from
> .49). I cannot afford to get these huge load averages on my news
> server. Nor can I afford thread thrashing. I just had to let myself
> be talked into upgrading. See if I still
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Thread Thrashing and 3.23.53a
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for mytop. Its a great tool and its been a
> great help in diagnosing our problems.
>
> I saw where a few of
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:25:00PM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
> --- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you post the output of SHOW VARIABLES?
> |
> | key_buffer_size | 402649088
--- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you post the output of SHOW VARIABLES?
|
+-+
| back_log| 50
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:37:09PM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
> > --- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You're disk-bound, not CPU bound. Notice all the idle CPU time? And
> >the fact that the "b" column always has one process listed, while "r"
> >only does once in a while.
>
> 2 gi
> --- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You're disk-bound, not CPU bound. Notice all the idle CPU time? And
>the fact that the "b" column always has one process listed, while "r"
>only does once in a while.
2 gigs of ram -- don't really know why we'd be disk bound. The my.cnf is
pretty
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:56:04PM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
>
> --- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, "load average" can be misleading.
> >
> > Can you maybe share the output of "vmstat 1" or "vmstat 5" for a
> > minute's worth of time? It's be good to see what the CPUs sta
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:34:44PM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
> --- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've read others who've said it fixed the problem
> > for them. Did you
> > check the archives?
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for mytop. Its a great tool and its been a great help in
> d
--- Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read others who've said it fixed the problem
> for them. Did you
> check the archives?
Jeremy,
Thanks for mytop. Its a great tool and its been a
great help in diagnosing our problems.
I saw where a few of the others claimed the latest
binari
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:28:01PM -0800, heath boutwell wrote:
>
> Can anyone that was experiencing the thread thrashing problems with
> the other binaries confirm that this has been with resolved with
> 53a?
I've read others who've said it fixed the problem for them. Did you
check the archives?
Can anyone that was experiencing the thread thrashing
problems with the other binaries confirm that this has
been with resolved with 53a?
I have installed the new binaries and will report what
is observed here after periods of heavy load.
Others on the list experienced the same occurances.
Previ
27 matches
Mail list logo
