Unfortunately, the results are almost exactly the same with haproxy 1.4 and those changes you recommended. I'm so confused...
Thanks for your help! On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Sean Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, here are the results from apache benchmark *before* making any other > changes to the system (1.4, timeouts, etc). > > The Test - https://gist.github.com/802251 > > The Results against the 1*256 haproxy -> 4*512 node cluster - > https://gist.github.com/802268 > Here's the haproxy status after the test - > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1165308/ab_haproxy.png > > The Results against the 1*512 node instance - > https://gist.github.com/802271 > > So, it looks about the same. The single instance outperforms the cluster, > which doesn't make any sense. I'll try those changes and see if it gets any > better. > > > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Sean Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Joel, >> >> I'm working on converting the test to ab (shouldn't take long) and trying >> out 1.4, but to answer your questions. RSTavg is average response time. >> There's a 500ms timer in the http response, and some serialization. It's >> over the local network. So that should be about 550ms under no load. >> >> Users per second, yes. >> >> I didn't use ab to start because I'm not interested in response time, per >> se, but at what load response time starts to fail. I don't know an effective >> way to do this with ab, partially because it doesn't support stepping (my >> test steps through the concurrency levels specified by "users", I should >> rename Usersps to sessions per second, because if a "user" takes less >> than 1 second they start again right away). My testing harness allows me to >> write tests in my application language, blah blah.. you get the idea. But >> yes, I'll run ab and see if I get the same results. >> >> I'll also try your changes to the timeouts. Thanks for your help! >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Joel Krauska <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Speculation, but using a newer version of haproxy (1.4) might also >>> improve performance for you. >>> >>> --Joel >>> >>> >>> On 1/29/11 10:53 AM, Sean Hess wrote: >>> >>>> I'm performing real-world load tests for the first time, and my results >>>> aren't making a lot of sense. >>>> >>>> Just to make sure I have the test harness working, I'm not testing >>>> "real" application code yet, I'm just hitting a web page that simulates >>>> an IO delay (500 ms), and then serializes out some json (about 85 bytes >>>> of content). It's not accessing the database, or doing anything other >>>> than printing out that data. My application servers are written in >>>> node.js, on 512MB VPSes on rackspace (centos55). >>>> >>>> Here are the results that don't make sense: >>>> >>>> https://gist.github.com/802082 >>>> >>>> When I run this test against a single application server (bottom one), >>>> You can see that it stays pretty flat (about 550ms response time) until >>>> it gets to 1500 simultaneous users, when it starts to error out and get >>>> slow. >>>> >>>> When I run it against an haproxy instance in front of 4 of the same >>>> nodes (top one), my performance is worse. It doesn't drop any >>>> connections, but the response time edges up much earlier than against a >>>> single node. >>>> >>>> Does this make any sense to you? Does haproxy need more RAM? I was >>>> watching the box while the test was running and the haproxy process >>>> didn't get higher than 20% CPU and 10% RAM. >>>> >>>> Please help, thanks! >>>> >>> >>> >> >
