Tommaso, We've not done any testing where we've had a step increase from no load to a very high load - the testing we've done has always involved a ramp-up. The SIPp tests rampup the load over 10 minutes, and the IMSBench tests started at 200 Scenario Attempts Per Second, and increased the number of scenario attempts by 20 in each step.
To answer your second question, the init.d scripts already look at the number of cores on the machine, and start an appropriate number of threads, so you shouldn't need to make any changes here. Ellie -----Original Message----- From: Tommaso Cucinotta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 December 2013 18:14 To: Eleanor Merry; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Clearwater] Performance of ClearWater @ AWS Hi again, I had a few further questions on this topic: a) if you try to stress the system with a step workload going suddenly to 340 scenario attempts per second, does the system behave differently than reaching progressively that workload through a ramp-type of workload ? b) is there any particular configuration in /etc/clearwater/config or /etc/init.d scripts you would advise for a multi-core machine on which clearwater components are deployed, in order to take advantage of the available parallelism degree? Like, what if one has a 8, 16, 32 cores machine available ? Thanks, T. On 11/12/13 09:48, Eleanor Merry wrote: > In addition to the existing performance numbers and SIPp testing, > we've also recently done some benchmark testing with IMSBench. A > Clearwater deployment consisting of 11 m1.small nodes (3 bonos, 2 > sprouts, 4 homesteads and 2 homers) was set up, and 100k subscribers > were provisioned on the deployment. The scenarios attempted in the > benchmarks tests split into 50% calls, 30% SIP MESSAGEs, 15% > re-registrations, 2.5% new client registrations and 2.5% > de-registrations. > > The IMSBench tests ran successfully up to 340 scenario attempts per > second. As 17.5% of the scenarios were registrations or > re-registrations, this translates into ~60 re-/registrations per > second on the deployment, while it was also running 1.2M BHCA. > > I hope this helps and let me know if you have any other questions. > > Ellie > > > -----Original Message----- From: > [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Tommaso Cucinotta Sent: 09 December 2013 17:48 To: > [email protected] Subject: [Clearwater] > Performance of ClearWater @ AWS > > Hi, > > I'd like to ask whether there's any standard measurement of how > ClearWater performs when installed on Amazon instances. I've seen a > spreadsheet seemingly containing numbers referring to individual > components measured/profiled autonomously, then some calculations / > deductions made based on those figures. Instead, I'd like to know what > numbers to expect (e.g., number of authenticated registrations per > second) from a complete end-to-end interaction through bono, sprout, > homestead and back to the user with, let's say, an installation with 1 > (m1.small) VM per component. > > Can anyone provide such experimental figures? > > Thanks, > > T. -- Tommaso Cucinotta, Computer Engineer PhD Researcher at > Alcatel-Lucent Bell Laboratories Blanchardstown Business & Technology > Park Dublin - Ireland _______________________________________________ > Clearwater mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.projectclearwater.org/listinfo/clearwater > -- Tommaso Cucinotta, Computer Engineer PhD Researcher at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Laboratories Blanchardstown Business & Technology Park Dublin - Ireland _______________________________________________ Clearwater mailing list [email protected] http://lists.projectclearwater.org/listinfo/clearwater
