Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Ok, but now we're talking about something that as far as I can tell, you can't even do with gunicorn. I agree WebSockets is a great reason to consider ASGI mode, but this still feels like an apples to oranges comparison. Or is the goal to somehow get Daphne + Django channels to work as fast as

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hi Robert, > Den 26. sep. 2016 kl. 03.03 skrev Robert Roskam : > > > The unit in the second graph is requests per minute, which is inconsistent > > since the first graph is requests per second. This also makes comparison > > difficult. Also, it doesn't actually show the

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

For exemple, student trying to do an interactive browser game. >From what I understood, ASGI main objective is to be the standard for websocket with django. In my opinion, the tested case is not pathological. It is the default one. Django configured barely enough to have stuff working. I agree

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

You might want to run a small site with WebSockets - there are a number of reasons to use ASGI mode, and it's important we make it scale down as well as up. Andrew On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Chris Foresman wrote: > Why would you be running a small website in ASGI mode

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Why would you be running a small website in ASGI mode with a single worker? My suspicion is that someone using Django in ASGI mode has a specific reason to do so. Otherwise, why not run it in WSGI mode? On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, ludovic coues wrote: > > What you call a

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

What you call a pathological case is a small website, running on something like cheap VPS. 2016-09-26 15:59 GMT+02:00 Chris Foresman : > Robert, > > Thanks! This really does clear things up. The results were a little > surprising at first blush since I believe part of the

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Robert, Thanks! This really does clear things up. The results were a little surprising at first blush since I believe part of the idea behind channels is to be able to serve more requests concurrently than a single-threaded approach typically allows. This is why I don't think this benchmark

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hey Chris, Sure thing! I'm going to add a little color to this; probably a little more than required. I have gunciorn for comparison on both graphs because channels supports HTTP requests, so we wanted to see how it would do against a serious production environment option. I could have

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hey Erik, You are absolutely correct! It was 500 rps. It's a typo. Very sorry! I'll fix it! To your other points, > At least for me, it took a

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hey Micahel, Yes, I ran the tests locally in redis. I thought this would be the best choice for a 1-to-1 comparison. In my opinion, it would invalidate the results to run the tests on an outside server or service. On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:13:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Manfre wrote: > >

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Yes. Honestly, just explain what these results mean in words, because I cannot turn these graphs into anything meaningful on my own. On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:41:05 PM UTC-5, Robert Roskam wrote: > > Hey Chris, > > The goal of these tests is to see how channels performs with normal

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

> Den 13. sep. 2016 kl. 09.28 skrev Erik Cederstrand > : > > First of all, thanks for taking the time to actually do the measurements! > It's insightful and very much appreciated. > > [...]300K requests in 10 minutes is 500 rps, but the text says 500 rps. Which >

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hi Robert, Thanks for doing this load testing. More context would be useful to help us outside observers to understand the potentially different variables. Is redis running locally or are you using elasticache? Regards, Michael Manfre On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:41 PM Robert Roskam

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

> Den 13. sep. 2016 kl. 03.41 skrev Robert Roskam : > > Hey Chris, > > The goal of these tests is to see how channels performs with normal HTTP > traffic under heavy load with a control. In order to compare accurately, I > tried to eliminate variances as much as

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hey Chris, The goal of these tests is to see how channels performs with normal HTTP traffic under heavy load with a control. In order to compare accurately, I tried to eliminate variances as much as possible. So yes, there was one worker for both Redis and IPC setups. I provided the

Re: Django Channels Load Testing Results

Is this one worker each? I also don't really understand the implication of the results. There's no context to explain the numbers nor if one result is better than another. On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:46:52 AM UTC-5, Robert Roskam wrote: > > Hello All, > > The following is an initial

Django Channels Load Testing Results

Hello All, The following is an initial report of Django Channels performance. While this is being shared in other media channels at this time, I fully expect to get some questions or clarifications from this group in particular, and I'll be happy to add to that README anything to help describe