wow...I totally did not mean to send that to the mailing list. Oh well. :)
Thank you for the reply Willy. This was actually very helpful. Regards, Anthony On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:27:49PM +0000, Porcano, Anthony wrote: >> Hi, >> >> My name is Anthony Porcano, and I work for 24/7 Real Media. We are >> evaluating HAproxy for a new application, and I wanted to inquire about any >> services you provide to customers taking on large installs. The volume we >> need to support is approximately 100k requests per second, or roughly 8 >> billion requests per day. In our testing thus far we have been able to >> achieve approximately 38k connections per second on a single system. If you >> do provide any professional services around HAproxy I would like to >> introduce you to some of our people and work on getting you involved. > > 38k connections per second on a single system is already quite a > good score, it's in the range of what I get in my home lab on a > Core2Duo at 2.66 GHz with a tuned kernel. From my observations, at > those ranges, eventhough you might notice a 85/15 share for system/ > user CPU usage, there's generally not much more to gain by tuning > the system any further because packet processing alone is costing > a lot (which you can verify by starting iptables and adding only > one rule). > > There are some possible optimizations in haproxy that you can use to > save a few packets on each side, or to save a few memory copies if > needed, depending on the context. > > I'd be particularly interested in exchanging with your people on the > subject as I always am when users push haproxy to extreme loads, but > as I stated it, I'm not hoping for a much higher result on a single > system. If we succeed, that's fine of course ;-) > > Cheers, > Willy >
