Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- system:benches10gbps:direct [2012/10/02 15:57]
ze cpu sibblings informations
+++ system:benches10gbps:direct [2012/10/04 13:16] (current)
ze add httpterm benches
@@ Line 188: / Line 188: @@
 idea how the CPU are regarding to threads and processors :
-  ^ CPU#0-5 | processor 0 | core 0-5 | thread 0 |
+^  CPU  ^  processor  ^  core  ^  thread  ^
-  ^ CPU#6-11 | processor 1 | core 0-5 | thread 0 |
+|  0-5  |  0  |  0-5  |  0  |
-  ^ CPU#12-17 | processor 0 | core 0-5 | thread 1 |
+|  6-11  |  1  |  0-5  |  0  |
-  ^ CPU#18-23 | processor 1 | core 0-5 | thread 1 |
+|  12-17  |  0  |  0-5  |  1  |
+|  18-23  |  1  |  0-5  |  1  |
 How to split ? Lets try differents splitting.
@@ Line 373: / Line 374: @@
   /root/inject -p 24 -d 60 -u 500 -s 20 -f small-24.txt -S 10.140.0.0-10.140.15.255:1024-65535
 hits/s
+====== dual ======
+To check on which side we have a bottle neck, lets try to have 2
+servers, or 2 clients.
+Tests done with the lastest configurations (client and server) which
+could give 240k hits/s.
+===== dual servers =====
+We get a second server with the same configuration, and checked it also
+can handle the 240k/s. Then, we change the scenario to hit the 24 IPs
+from both servers.
+  New input file: dual-24.txt
+  new page0a 0
+          get 10.128.0.0:80 /
+  new page0b 0
+          get 10.132.0.0:80 /
+  new page1a 0
+          get 10.128.0.1:80 /
+  new page1b 0
+          get 10.132.0.1:80 /
+  [...]
+  new page23a 0
+          get 10.128.0.23:80 /
+  new page23b 0
+          get 10.132.0.23:80 /
+  /root/inject -p 24 -d 60 -u 500 -s 20 -f dual-24.txt -S 10.140.0.0-10.140.15.255:1024-65535
+hits/s
+Though the client seems to use all its CPU for 240k/s, it still can go
+up and handle 400k hits/s. The bottle neck is probably not really on
+that side.
+===== dual client =====
+We get a second client with the same configuration, and checked it also
+can generate the 240k/s.
+To launch both clients at the same time, cssh is very nice :)
+  /root/inject -p 24 -d 60 -u 500 -s 20 -f small-24.txt -S 10.140.0.0-10.140.15.255:1024-65535
+hits/s
+hits/s
+  total: 244328 hits/s
+Ok, client is clearly not the limitation, as with two clients, we get
+the same total.
 ====== conclusions ======
@@ Line 383: / Line 435: @@
   * on high load configuration, reducing the number of process to just have one per used core is better
   * 240k connections / seconds is doable with a single host
+For some unknown reason (at the time of writing that documentation), the
+connections highly drops for 1-2s, as can be seen on
+[[http://www.hagtheil.net/files/system/benches10gbps/direct/bench-bad/nginx-bad/elastiques-nginx/|bench-bad/nginx-bad]]
+graphs. I tried to avoid using results triggering such behaviour. Any ideas/hints on what could produce such are welcome.
+====== post-bench ======
+After publishing the first benches, someone adviced to use httpterm, instead of nginx. Unlike nginx, httpterm is aimed at only doing stress bench, and not serve real pages.
+Bench using multi-process httpterm directly shows some bug. It still sends header, but fails to send data. Getting down to 1 process keep it running, but obviously not using all cores.
+As we have 16 core for the web server, so 16 process with 1 IP each were launched, pinned with taskset on a cpu each.
+  file-0.cfg:
+  # taskset 000010 ./httpterm -D -f file-0.cfg
+  global
+          maxconn 30000
+          ulimit-n 500000
+          nbproc 1
+          quiet
+  listen proxy1 10.128.0.0:80
+          object weight 1 name test1 code 200 size 200
+          clitimeout 10000
+That gives up more connections per seconds: 278765
+That helps get even more requests per seconds, but we still get some stall at times.

ze's sandcastle

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools