Ok, thanks for the detailed answers.
Tommaso
On 16/12/13 09:38, Eleanor Merry wrote:
> 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
>
--
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
