Mailing List Archive

* Matthias Saou
> It seems that 1.0.3 has finally been made with "make dist",
> unfortunately, both "etc" and "redhat" directories are missing from the
> EXTRA_DIST line of Makefile.am, thus weren't included in the released
> tarball.
>
> Was this intentional? The "etc" directory contained the example
> vcl.conf which was quite useful to have.

I can't speak for the main release, but I'll roll RPMS of 1.0.3 "real
soon now". The files should be available from svn anyhow.

By the way, does this mean that varnish is going into the rpmforge repos?

Ingvar

--
N?r alt annet feiler: Symlink

Ingvar Hagelund wrote :

> * Matthias Saou
> > It seems that 1.0.3 has finally been made with "make dist",
> > unfortunately, both "etc" and "redhat" directories are missing from the
> > EXTRA_DIST line of Makefile.am, thus weren't included in the released
> > tarball.
> >
> > Was this intentional? The "etc" directory contained the example
> > vcl.conf which was quite useful to have.
>
> I can't speak for the main release, but I'll roll RPMS of 1.0.3 "real
> soon now". The files should be available from svn anyhow.

Yeah, the "redhat" files aren't that useful for typical end-users, it's
for the example vcl.conf that it's more or a problem.

> By the way, does this mean that varnish is going into the rpmforge repos?

Eventually. I saw that the redhat/TODO file contained "Add the package
to Fedora Extras", so I guess you've already thought about publishing
packages for a wider audience, right? ;-)

But for me there are currently some quite major issues :
- Varnish doesn't "work well" on 32bit architectures (ouch!), see #85.
- Varnish isn't "reliable", see #67, #70 and #87.
- Varnish requires a C compiler at runtime... design decision, sure, but
opinions about this are quite mixed, and I know this won't help get
varnish into Fedora.

Last night, I had varnish crash twice on me. Not just the worker child
dying and another one being spawned, but a real nasty crash with no more
varnishd processes left running and nothing whatsoever on the console
where I had launched it with -d -d (this was with varnish svn trunk, so
pretty much 1.0.3, I think).
This was on 64bit RHEL4, 1G storage file, pushing 50 to 150Mbps.

I really think varnish has a huge potential, but I still find it quite
rough around the edges. I'd really like to have :
- Useful logging of critical errors like "Too many open files" or
"Worker child died, spawning a new one" etc.
- A rock solid handling of memory allocation to avoid the issues
mentioned above, which seem to occur when memory allocation fails
(cache full? max addressable memory all used? ...).

Keep up the great work :-)

Matthias

--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.19-1.2895.fc6
Load : 0.42 0.54 0.75

Matthias Saou wrote:

> But for me there are currently some quite major issues :
> - Varnish doesn't "work well" on 32bit architectures (ouch!), see #85.
> - Varnish isn't "reliable", see #67, #70 and #87.
> - Varnish requires a C compiler at runtime... design decision, sure, but
> opinions about this are quite mixed, and I know this won't help get
> varnish into Fedora.
>
> Last night, I had varnish crash twice on me. Not just the worker child
> dying and another one being spawned, but a real nasty crash with no more
> varnishd processes left running and nothing whatsoever on the console
> where I had launched it with -d -d (this was with varnish svn trunk, so
> pretty much 1.0.3, I think).
> This was on 64bit RHEL4, 1G storage file, pushing 50 to 150Mbps.

Hmm. I am currently running on the same system, though 64 bit, same
storage file size, at an average network throughput of around only 1Mbps
though. It's on a gigabit link though, so peaks can be much,much higher.
The slashdot crowd is fortunately not interested though... ;)

I've been running for around five weeks, and in that period had one
incident where varnish suddenly started dropping all incoming for some
hours. Since then (restart after update to svn code), it's been running
quite smoothly with a couple of similar (but much shorter) glitches.

I'm running svn code though, not the standard RH rpm, since that one
crashed more frequently than useful "live".

Anyway, much looking forward to later versions, looking OK so far, with
promising plans. Will stay tuned ;)

--
Kenneth R?rvik, IT HiO
Tlf 22 45 20 83
Kenneth.Rorvik at hio.no

Hi.

Just today, I got asked by our server guy, if he should upgrade from 1.0.1 to
1.0.3, to se if that would fix some problems we have had reported.

I am not yet convinced that those glitches are related to varnish and not the
customers IE7, but if you have some RPM's right around the corner, then I
guess we wil wait for that :)

Wil you be building for rhel4 as well?

Gaute

On Wednesday 21 February 2007 14:21, Ingvar Hagelund wrote:
> * Matthias Saou
>
> > It seems that 1.0.3 has finally been made with "make dist",
> > unfortunately, both "etc" and "redhat" directories are missing from the
> > EXTRA_DIST line of Makefile.am, thus weren't included in the released
> > tarball.
> >
> > Was this intentional? The "etc" directory contained the example
> > vcl.conf which was quite useful to have.
>
> I can't speak for the main release, but I'll roll RPMS of 1.0.3 "real
> soon now". The files should be available from svn anyhow.
>
> By the way, does this mean that varnish is going into the rpmforge repos?
>
> Ingvar

--
Programmerer - Pixelhospitalet AS
T?rkoppveien 10, 1570 Dilling
Tlf. 24 12 97 81 - 9074 7344

* Gaute Amundsen
> Just today, I got asked by our server guy, if he should upgrade from 1.0.1 to
> 1.0.3, to se if that would fix some problems we have had reported.
>
> I am not yet convinced that those glitches are related to varnish and not the
> customers IE7, but if you have some RPM's right around the corner, then I
> guess we wil wait for that :)
>
> Wil you be building for rhel4 as well?

RHEL4/x86_64 is my main target. I may build i386, ppc and ppc64 too, all
for RHEL4. I don't know if I ever will get the package into Fedora. I
haven't even started the process.

It should be quite easy to make a SuSE package too, though I probably
won't have the time (unless some customer should want to pay for it).

Ingvar

--
When everything else fail: Symlink