I turned on those two options and seemed to help a little.
We don't have a 2.6.30+ kernel so I don't believe option
splice-response will work(?). Thats one of the things I'm going to try
next.
I used halog to narrow down the sample, it was still a few 100 lines
so I picked three at random.
Jun 1 14:19:59 localhost haproxy[3124]: 76.102.107.85:28023
[01/Jun/2011:14:19:48.502] recs runtimes/sf-102 8062/0/0/3123/+11185
200 +814 - - ---- 1267/1267/18/14/0 0/0 {Apache-Coyote/1.1|3827|||}
Jun 1 14:19:09 localhost haproxy[3124]: 96.229.202.77:56011
[01/Jun/2011:14:19:00.861] recs runtimes/sf-103 4982/0/0/3956/+8938
200 +426 - - ---- 1214/1212/39/39/0 0/0 {Apache-Coyote/1.1|622|||}
Jun 1 14:22:09 localhost haproxy[3124]: 108.68.28.81:59854
[01/Jun/2011:14:19:02.218] recs runtimes/sf-110 3731/0/0/3844/+7575
200 +523 - - ---- 1214/1212/45/43/0 0/0 {Apache-Coyote/1.1|4856|||}
If you need more I can attach the log, im removing the request url and
referrer just because it has client info it, I'll have to ask if thats
ok to post.
Matt C.
2011/6/9 Hervé COMMOWICK <[email protected]>:
> Hello Matt,
>
> You need to activate logging to see what occurs to your requests, you
> can use "halog" tool (in the contrib folder) to filter out fast
> requests.
>
> Other things you can enable to reduce latency is :
> option tcp-smart-accept
> option tcp-smart-connect
>
> and finally you can test :
> option splice-response
> But this one will be dependent of your kind of traffic.
>
> next release 1.4.16 have some improvements in latency
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05080.html), i
> think you can give it a try, take the daily snapshot for this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé.
>
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:57:38 -0700
> Matt Christiansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am wanting to move to HAProxy for my load balancing solution. Over
>> all I have been greatly impressed with it. It has way more throughput
>> and can handle way more connections then our current LB Solution
>> (nginx). I have been noticing one issue in all of our tests though, it
>> seems like in the TP99.9 (and greater) of response times is much MUCH
>> higher then nginx and we have a lot of outliers.
>>
>> Our test makes a call to the VIP and times the time it takes to
>> receive the data back then pauses for a sec or two and makes the next
>> response. In both of the sample results below I did 2000 requests.
>>
>> HAProxy
>>
>> Average: 39.71128451818
>> Median: 29.4217891182
>> tp90: 67.48199012481
>> tp99: 313.29083442688
>> tp99.9: 562.318801879883
>> Over 500ms: 10
>> Over 2000ms: 0
>>
>> nginx
>>
>> Average: 69.6072148084641
>> Median: 59.2541694641113
>> tp90: 87.6350402832031
>> tp99: 112.42142221222
>> tp99.9: 180.88918274272
>> Over 500ms: 0
>> Over 2000ms: 0
>>
>> So as you can see a big difference in the TP99.9 and a big difference
>> in the outlier count but the average and median response time are
>> really low.
>>
>> We are running a pretty stock centos 5.6 server install with HAProxy
>> 1.4.15, HAProxy isn't using more then like 4% of the CPU and the
>> System CPU is closer to 12%.
>>
>> I was wondering if you guys had any obvious response time related
>> performance tweaks I can try. If you need more info let me know too.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt C.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Hervé COMMOWICK, EXOSEC (http://www.exosec.fr/)
> ZAC des Metz - 3 Rue du petit robinson - 78350 JOUY EN JOSAS
> Tel: +33 1 30 67 60 65 - Fax: +33 1 75 43 40 70
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
