Memcached module -- unix domain socket support? (too many TIME_WAITs..)
chanceycn at gmail.com
Fri Aug 1 11:06:13 MSD 2008
Yes, i meant this like you.
Using memcached can avoid disk I/O. I guess that is why he used memcached on localhost.
sorry , my english very pool.
发件人： Igor Sysoev
发送时间： 2008-08-01 14:39:19
收件人： nginx at sysoev.ru
主题： Re: Re: Memcached module -- unix domain socket support? (too many TIME_WAITs..)
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:27:55PM +0800, Chancey wrote:
> Maybe I/O is too high ?
> Use memcached can avoid this .
Using local memcached means that all data can fit in memory, therefore
local filesystem data will be cached by OS VM and there will not be
high disk I/O.
> ?????? Re: Memcached module -- unix domain socket support? (too many TIME_WAITs..)
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 09:54:03PM -0700, Kon Wilms wrote:
> > I have a pool of memcached servers running on localhost with
> > connection to nginx, feeding motion jpeg data out via static JPEGs to
> > a flash application. The load is pretty high on the server because of
> > this with each client running 3 GETs from memcached every second (i.e.
> > 3fps).
> > Nginx works fine, however, the problem I have is that thousands of
> > TIME_WAITs are created from the memcached GET requests, which I would
> > like to eliminate. I've already tuned the kernel but this has not
> > reduced it enough to handle a couple thousand viewers on the server.
> > Is there any way to connect nginx's memcached module to memcached via
> > unix domain socket or perhaps UDP, or any other ideas on how to fix
> > this problem?
> Adding unix socket support to ngx_http_memcached_module should be easy,
> but I'm not sure if memcached suppot unix sockets.
> BTW why do you serve local images from memcached ?
> It's better for both CPU and memory to serve them from local filesystem
> using sendfile.
> Igor Sysoev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nginx