Bug 1656034
| Summary: | Varnish is compiled without jemalloc. jemalloc is missing. | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar> | ||||||
| Component: | varnish | Assignee: | Luboš Uhliarik <luhliari> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | rhel-cs-infra-services-qe <rhel-cs-infra-services-qe> | ||||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||||
| Version: | 8.0 | CC: | bnater, ingvar, jorton, luhliari, sipoyare | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Triaged | ||||||
| Target Release: | 8.0 | Flags: | jorton:
mirror+
|
||||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2021-02-01 07:30:53 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Ingvar Hagelund
2018-12-04 13:58:17 UTC
Hi Ingvar - thanks a lot for your feedback, and also for your ongoing work to maintain the varnish package in Fedora - I appreciate both! 1) Yes, we are looking at updating to 6.0.2. 2) We made the decision to drop jemalloc support in conjunction with the Red Hat toolchain team, so we can concentrate resources on supporting a single malloc implementation across the distribution. Are you aware of specific varnish benchmarks for which jemalloc outperforms glibc malloc? We're interested in doing more performance testing here. Hello, Joe. This kind of benchmarking has been done before. Here is one done by Reza Naghibi in Varnish Software for varnish-4.1.1 https://filebin.varnish-software.com/isjzpg3tj1npiy46 basically, look at the spread between the blue and red line. Ingvar Created attachment 1512177 [details]
Varnish memory usage
Created attachment 1512178 [details]
Varnish memory usage (pdf)
Joe; How did you solve this with other rhel8 packages internally/static or shared linked to jemalloc, like mariadb, redis, and firefox? Ingvar Also, while rolling varnish-6.0 downstream for rhel8, to avoid too much ducplicated work, consider my copr repos for el6 and el7, where I follow both fedora (varnish-6.1 in rawhide) and varnish-6.0 (as well as all other later releases of Varnish Cache). https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ingvar/ Ingvar [ingvar@rhel8 ~]$ rpm -q firefox firefox-60.2.1-1.el8.x86_64 [ingvar@rhel8 ~]$ strings /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin | grep jemalloc_ jemalloc_stats jemalloc_purge_freed_pages jemalloc_free_dirty_pages jemalloc_ptr_info jemalloc_thread_local_arena [ingvar@rhel8 ~]$ rpm -q redis redis-4.0.10-2.el8+1553+45154855.x86_64 [ingvar@rhel8 ~]$ strings /usr/bin/redis-server | grep jemalloc_ je_jemalloc_prefork je_jemalloc_postfork_child je_jemalloc_postfork_parent So instead of the burden of maintaining one shared instance of jemalloc ... you maintain at least two different inline versions. I am sorry, I do not see the rationale here. Upstream clearly advocates the use of jemalloc with Varnish. If Red Hat really does not want to support a shared library, I would advice including jemalloc inline in varnish (again), like you do with redis and firefox. While tossing the Fedora policy out, at least Varnish may run at full speed. I agree that updated benchmarks would be great. Ingvar Relevant: #1917697 After evaluating this issue, there are no plans to address it further or fix it in an upcoming release. Therefore, it is being closed. If plans change such that this issue will be fixed in an upcoming release, then the bug can be reopened. |