Hi Andrew, Ignasi Checking once again any update on this?
-- Thanks -- Kishore On 06/06/17, 12:10 PM, "Ignasi Barrera" <n...@apache.org> wrote: >Hi, > >I can pick it up, but I think we should have some more feedback from >Andrew first, at least to see if he still has some concerns about the >implementation. >I do like the current async approach but it wouldn't be right to move >forward without the OK of the team member that had concerns and has >been more involved in the design discussion. > > >I, > >On 6 June 2017 at 08:28, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: >> Hi Jclouds dev >> >> Anyone else who could pick up instead of AndrewG ? >> >> It would be great to be able to have this support added to JClouds. >> >> Thanks >> Felix >> >>> Am 06.06.2017 um 05:49 schrieb Andrew Phillips <andr...@apache.org>: >>> >>> Hi Kishore >>> >>> Andrew G. is travelling for most of June, as far as I understand, so will >>> likely be a bit slower to respond. Thanks for your patience! >>> >>> ap >>> >>> On 2017-06-05 23:42, Battula Kishore wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> Any update on this? >>>> -- Thanks >>>> -- Kishore >>>> On 29/05/17, 1:06 PM, "Battula Kishore" <batt...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>> Thanks andrew for the quick response. Here is the GitHub repo and >>>>> instructions on how to run the tests >>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fkishore25kumar%2Fs3proxy-async-test-setup&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8969ed65c6a749aebfa608d4a66583cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636316402308126519&sdata=0YESeCSlmChUOicpe2m9SYC1WaB7m%2B7hIB6o%2BTOp1Jo%3D&reserved=0. >>>>> The READE.md also has the repo details of s3proxy as well as jclouds >>>>> implementation. Hope this helps? Let me know if you need anything else? >>>>> In the mean time you review these results if you can let me know the >>>>> design review process I can be prepared for that. >>>>> -- Thanks >>>>> -- Kishore >>>>> On 26/05/17, 12:40 PM, "Andrew Gaul" <g...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> Kishore, these are promising results! I reformatted the most important >>>>>> rows which show a 2x improvement in throughput and latency: >>>>>> 10 10,000 Async Http Lib 209 282 48 >>>>>> 10 10,000 OutputStream 392 542 25 >>>>>> Can you share the implementation and include instructions on how to >>>>>> replicate these tests? >>>>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:50:52AM +0000, Battula Kishore wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> This is Kishore who is working on async poc using mail >>>>>>> id(kishore25ku...@gmail.com<mailto:kishore25ku...@gmail.com>). I work >>>>>>> at adobe and we wanted to implement async support for jclouds library >>>>>>> and contribute it back. >>>>>>> From the last discussion I was asked to get the performance numbers for >>>>>>> the two approaches. >>>>>>> Approach 1: Using Http Async Library >>>>>>> Approach 2: Using Outputstream >>>>>>> Test setup: >>>>>>> 1. Both the s3 proxy server and test runner are running in same >>>>>>> Docker container in azure west-us region. >>>>>>> 2. Azure storage account is also residing in same west-us region. >>>>>>> 3. A bucket is prepopulated with 100,000 files, each file of 1 MB >>>>>>> size before test start. >>>>>>> 4. The test runner sends unique requests to s3proxy to download >>>>>>> files. >>>>>>> Virtual Machine spec: CPU - 8 cores, Memory - 28 GB (Standard_D4 Azure >>>>>>> machine) >>>>>>> S3proxy is running with 1 jetty worker thread in all the scenarios. The >>>>>>> payload size used is 1 MB file. Here are the performance numbers. >>>>>>> Test Runner Threads >>>>>>> Iteration Per thread >>>>>>> Approach >>>>>>> Avg response time (ms) >>>>>>> 99%tile time (ms) >>>>>>> Throughput >>>>>>> (Requests / sec) >>>>>>> 1 >>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>> Async Http Lib >>>>>>> 45 >>>>>>> 87 >>>>>>> 22 >>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>> Async Http Lib >>>>>>> 107 >>>>>>> 159 >>>>>>> 47 >>>>>>> 10 >>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>> Async Http Lib >>>>>>> 209 >>>>>>> 282 >>>>>>> 48 >>>>>>> 1 >>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>> OutputStream >>>>>>> 41 >>>>>>> 85 >>>>>>> 24 >>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>> OutputStream >>>>>>> 190 >>>>>>> 283 >>>>>>> 26 >>>>>>> 10 >>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>> OutputStream >>>>>>> 392 >>>>>>> 542 >>>>>>> 25 >>>>>>> Summary: Under load Http Async Library approach is providing more >>>>>>> throughput compared to Output stream approach. >>>>>>> Both the approaches improve performance. The output stream approach can >>>>>>> be used along with Http Async library approach which is giving around >>>>>>> (3-5 ms) improvement in latency. >>>>>>> Each approach is independent development. At this point I am keen to >>>>>>> take up Http Async Library development. >>>>>>> -- Thanks >>>>>>> -- Kishore >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Andrew Gaul >>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgaul.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8690ee3e00bc4e3da0e608d4a406565e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636313794511467457&sdata=XQ%2FshVjdqC3KiVEuyH6%2FJvmDN5DHBmS0kIBx98V89KY%3D&reserved=0 >>
