Search squid archive

Re: Squid 3.2, multiple workers, SNMP (and a bit of IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/04/2013 6:38 p.m., Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
Hi.

On 18.01.2013 06:42, Panagiotis Christias wrote:

In both cases, every SNMP adds two or new stale entries (filedescriptors,
sockets or whatever) as reported by lsof:

# lsof -i -nP | egrep 'PID|:163$'
COMMAND  PID  USER   FD   TYPE             DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
squid   5007 squid   15u  IPv4 0xfffffe0006b14790      0t0  UDP 127.0.0.1:163
squid   5008 squid   15u  IPv4 0xfffffe0006b14790      0t0  UDP 127.0.0.1:163
squid   5008 squid   19u  IPv4 0xfffffe0006b14790      0t0  UDP 127.0.0.1:163
squid   5008 squid   41u  IPv4 0xfffffe0006b14790      0t0  UDP 127.0.0.1:163
(and the list gets longer and longer as our monitoring systems keep
quering squid..).

Everything (SNMP-related) works correctly when we use just one worker
but currently this is no option since a single squid 3.2 worker seems
to be unable to handle as many requests as squid 2.7 (in our case at
least).

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Yeah, recently I discovered that I have exactly same issue with 3.2.9.
Furthermore, I can say that I even have more workers than intended:

22972  ??  S      0:02.92 (squid-2) -f /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf
(squid)
23146  ??  S      0:02.44 (squid-1) -f /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf
(squid)
23237  ??  S      0:00.74 (squid-coord-3) -f
/usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf (squid)
31139  ??  R      0:00.11 (squid-1) -f /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf
(squid)
31192  ??  R      0:00.01 (squid-1) -f /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf
(squid)
31193  ??  R      0:00.00 (squid-1) -f /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf
(squid)

Some of they don't die after squid -k kill, I have to kill them
explicitely with -9.
Is that normal ? Right now I decided to switch back to non-SMP.
And yeah, I just don't like this situation with thousands of open FDs,
wich doesn't happen with one worker.

Is this resolved in 3.3.x ?

Thanks.
Eugene.

No, unfortuately nobody is working on that part yet.

As a workaround you should be able to retrieve SNMP information per-worker by using ${process_number} in the snmp_port directive to assign each worker a unique port for SNMP contact.

Amos




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Samba]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Linux USB]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux