By changing setting to 1024 bit. I am getting comparable result. Thanks all
for kind help.

SSL INFO: DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1
- Protocol: TLS1.0
- Key Exchange: DHE-RSA
- Ephemeral DH using prime of 1024 bits
- Cipher: AES-256-CBC
- MAC: SHA1
- Compression: NULL
- Certificate Type: X.509
- Certificate Info: subject `C=AU,ST=Some-State,O=Internet Widgits Pty
Ltd,CN=api.test.in', issuer `C=AU,ST=Some-State,O=Internet Widgits Pty
Ltd,CN=api.test.in', RSA key 2048 bits, signed using RSA-SHA256, activated
`2016-09-21 12:05:24 UTC', expires `2026-09-19 12:05:24 UTC', SHA-1
fingerprint `60b99cbb34a580c0923dd6b83a4e947143ced684'

TOTALS:  5000 connect, 5000 requests, 5000 success, 0 fail, 500 (500) real
concurrency
TRAFFIC: 10 avg bytes, 230 avg overhead, 50000 bytes, 1150000 overhead
TIMING:  7.387 seconds, 676 rps, 158 kbps, 738.7 ms avg req time




On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Marcin Deranek <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:45:16 +0530
> Rajesh Mahajan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Please find attached new test result using httpress tool.
> > Configuration is remain same for both nginx and haproxy shared
> > earlier.
> >
> > Summary Report
> > *Haproxy:*
> >
> > TOTALS:  5000 connect, 5000 requests, 5000 success, 0 fail, 500 (500)
> > real concurrency
> > TRAFFIC: 10 avg bytes, 230 avg overhead, 50000 bytes, 1150000 overhead
> > TIMING:  25.253 seconds, 197 rps, 46 kbps, 2525.3 ms avg req time
> >
> > *Nginx:*
> >
> > TOTALS:  5000 connect, 5000 requests, 5000 success, 0 fail, 500 (500)
> > real concurrency
> > TRAFFIC: 10 avg bytes, 230 avg overhead, 50000 bytes, 1150000 overhead
> > TIMING:  6.439 seconds, 776 rps, 181 kbps, 643.9 ms avg req time
>
> Are you sure you are comparing apples with apples ? As far as I can see
> in both cases you are requesting /index.html. In case of Nginx this is
> served locally by Nginx. In case of HAProxy on the other hand this goes
> the the backend server which means HAProxy acts as a proxy which means
> it has to do more work / takes more time.
> Cheers,
>
> Marcin
>

Reply via email to