Hi Andrew, It's been very long time since I published the performance number. Is there any update on this?
--Thanks --Kishore -----Original Message----- From: Battula Kishore [mailto:batt...@adobe.com.INVALID] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:59 AM To: dev@jclouds.apache.org Subject: RE: Adding async support for Jclouds library Hi Andrew, Did you get a chance to look into the performance numbers I have published? We are blocked on this. --Thanks --Kishore -----Original Message----- From: Battula Kishore [mailto:batt...@adobe.com.INVALID] Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:13 AM To: dev@jclouds.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding async support for Jclouds library Hi Andrew, Did you get a chance to look into the performance numbers I have published? -- Thanks -- Kishore On 17/07/17, 11:08 AM, "Battula Kishore" <batt...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: Hi Andrew, Did you get a chance to look into the async implementation and numbers I have published? -- Thanks -- Kishore On 24/06/17, 7:19 AM, "Battula Kishore" <batt...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: Hi Andrew, I can totally understand the concerns you have. Please let me know when you can start work on this? To reiterate this is one of the important feature for us and want to use it in our production systems. We wanted to contribute back the async changes to open source. -- Thanks -- Kishore On 22/06/17, 12:00 AM, "Dancy, Chris" <chris.da...@pega.com> wrote: >Hey Everyone, > >I'm generally just a lurker on this list but we use jclouds internally here for various things. I've been following the async work and it sounds promising. If you need additional testing done please send around the details on how to do so and we'd be more than happy to help out and provide more benchmarks. > >Thanks, >Chris >________________________________________ >From: Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> >Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 2:12 PM >To: dev@jclouds.apache.org >Subject: Re: Adding async support for Jclouds library > >As Andrew Philips said, I have little availability until early July. >While others have capability of reviewing these changes, I prefer to >look at them as well since we have screwed up a previous async API. I >continue to doubt the async benchmark results and I want to further >understand what you have measured. Given that we have been talking >about these changes since March and earlier responses had no particular >urgency, including ignoring my mails, we should not have any such >urgency now. Assuming this is still open, I look forward to working on >it in a few weeks. > >On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 06:28:06AM +0000, Felix Meschberger 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 >> > >-- >Andrew Gaul >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgaul.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cccc73352a8964b931b6a08d4b8d392a3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636336666213699146&sdata=58ycimrkelgVaMn69lHY2nWE2qlzK6gpkuH%2FZP06M6E%3D&reserved=0 > > >
