Re: [Mongrel] FastCGI performing better than Mongrel - what am I doing wrong?
On Apr 6, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Benjamin Jackson wrote: Are you running these tests cold? You probably want to throw out the first bunch of requests (say, 1000) to better simulate real-world running conditions. You mean disregard them in the stats? Would you mind explaining this a little more? Right after you start a lot of processes, there's a bunch of optimization that takes place -- frequently used files are read into cache, database connections are set up, necessary parts of the operating system are paged into memory, perhaps your VM is setting itself up, maybe Rails is generating caches... All of this stuff takes time, and can make requests really slow. Fortunately, you almost never run Rails immediately after startup (unless you're using rmagick or something ;-) so throwing out the data with that startup hit will give you a better idea of how your site will perform in the real world. In your case, it looked to me like Mongrel's median times were faster -- your totals were longer because of a very large max time. -Nate ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
Re: [Mongrel] FastCGI performing better than Mongrel - what am I doing wrong?
You might try a more current version of Nginx and see if the proxying performance has improved compared to the FastCGI support. You're using a fairly old version. http://nginx.net/CHANGES Will check this out and report the results. Thanks :) ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
Re: [Mongrel] FastCGI performing better than Mongrel - what am I doing wrong?
Are you running these tests cold? You probably want to throw out the first bunch of requests (say, 1000) to better simulate real-world running conditions. You mean disregard them in the stats? Would you mind explaining this a little more? Also, what's up with the non-2xx responses? Are you benchmarking an error page or something? No, maybe because I'm hitting eship.com.br and not www.eship.com.br it's throwing a 301? Will have to double-check my setup. ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
[Mongrel] FastCGI performing better than Mongrel - what am I doing wrong?
I tried benchmarking the same site behind an NGINX proxy with both fastcgi and mongrel, and for some reason mongrel is performing pretty poorly in comparison. Any idea what I might be doing wrong? Here's my benchmarks for 1 fcgi: Server Software:nginx/0.4.0 Server Hostname:eship.com.br Server Port:80 Document Path: / Document Length:95 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 10.437 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests:0 Broken pipe errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 1000 Total transferred: 366000 bytes HTML transferred: 95000 bytes Requests per second:95.81 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1043.70 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 10.44 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 35.07 [Kbytes/sec] received Connnection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 182 435 294.5430 3428 Processing: 371 569 296.5505 2674 Waiting: 189 569 296.5505 2674 Total:371 1004 418.8938 3963 And for 2 mongrels: Server Software:nginx/0.4.0 Server Hostname:eship.com.br Server Port:80 Document Path: / Document Length:95 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 13.041 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests:0 Broken pipe errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 1000 Total transferred: 417000 bytes HTML transferred: 95000 bytes Requests per second:76.68 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1304.10 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 13.04 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 31.98 [Kbytes/sec] received Connnection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 175 234 292.9187 3099 Processing: 204 897 806.4611 5619 Waiting: 187 897 806.5611 5619 Total:365 1132 840.6842 5804 ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
Re: [Mongrel] FastCGI performing better than Mongrel - what am I doing wrong?
Looking even at your standard deviations, I don't see much of a difference between these. What's your SD on the req/sec? Regards, Jason On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Benjamin Jackson wrote: I tried benchmarking the same site behind an NGINX proxy with both fastcgi and mongrel, and for some reason mongrel is performing pretty poorly in comparison. Any idea what I might be doing wrong? Here's my benchmarks for 1 fcgi: Server Software:nginx/0.4.0 Server Hostname:eship.com.br Server Port:80 Document Path: / Document Length:95 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 10.437 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests:0 Broken pipe errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 1000 Total transferred: 366000 bytes HTML transferred: 95000 bytes Requests per second:95.81 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1043.70 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 10.44 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 35.07 [Kbytes/sec] received Connnection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 182 435 294.5430 3428 Processing: 371 569 296.5505 2674 Waiting: 189 569 296.5505 2674 Total:371 1004 418.8938 3963 And for 2 mongrels: Server Software:nginx/0.4.0 Server Hostname:eship.com.br Server Port:80 Document Path: / Document Length:95 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 13.041 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests:0 Broken pipe errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 1000 Total transferred: 417000 bytes HTML transferred: 95000 bytes Requests per second:76.68 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1304.10 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 13.04 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 31.98 [Kbytes/sec] received Connnection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 175 234 292.9187 3099 Processing: 204 897 806.4611 5619 Waiting: 187 897 806.5611 5619 Total:365 1132 840.6842 5804 ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
Re: [Mongrel] FastCGI performing better than Mongrel - what am I doing wrong?
Looking even at your standard deviations, I don't see much of a difference between these. What's your SD on the req/sec? Thanks for the heads-up Jason. ab doesn't have a SD on the req/sec AFAIK, tried doing (I think) equivalent benchmarks with httperf, this time from the server, and I got the following results. It seems like FastCGI is marginally faster than Mongrel for my site when both are run with 2 dispatchers. Does this sound like an accurate test, or did I miss something essential in the benchmarking process? Thanks, Ben --- FastCGI (1 proc): $ httperf --server=eship.com.br --rate=100 --num-conns=1000 httperf --client=0/1 --server=eship.com.br --port=80 --uri=/ --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=1000 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 7 Total: connections 1000 requests 1000 replies 1000 test-duration 16.141 s Connection rate: 62.0 conn/s (16.1 ms/conn, =257 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 10.2 avg 1741.3 max 9040.8 median 1614.5 stddev 1737.0 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.0 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 62.0 req/s (16.1 ms/req) Request size [B]: 63.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 48.2 avg 65.7 max 75.0 stddev 15.1 (3 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 1741.3 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 304.0 content 95.0 footer 2.0 (total 401.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=0 3xx=1000 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 1.31 system 13.72 (user 8.1% system 85.0% total 93.1%) Net I/O: 28.0 KB/s (0.2*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 --- FastCGI (2 procs): $ httperf --server=eship.com.br --rate=100 --num-conns=1000 httperf --client=0/1 --server=eship.com.br --port=80 --uri=/ --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=1000 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 8 Total: connections 1000 requests 1000 replies 1000 test-duration 11.993 s Connection rate: 83.4 conn/s (12.0 ms/conn, =169 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 10.7 avg 837.5 max 2047.6 median 831.5 stddev 662.5 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.3 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 83.4 req/s (12.0 ms/req) Request size [B]: 63.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 82.4 avg 83.8 max 85.2 stddev 2.0 (2 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 837.2 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 304.0 content 95.0 footer 2.0 (total 401.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=0 3xx=1000 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 1.23 system 8.75 (user 10.3% system 73.0% total 83.2%) Net I/O: 37.6 KB/s (0.3*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 --- Mongrel: $ httperf --server=eship.com.br --rate=100 --num-conns=1000 httperf --client=0/1 --server=eship.com.br --port=80 --uri=/ --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=1000 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 4 Total: connections 1000 requests 1000 replies 1000 test-duration 13.000 s Connection rate: 76.9 conn/s (13.0 ms/conn, =212 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 19.5 avg 1117.1 max 4115.2 median 1036.5 stddev 936.0 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.0 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 76.9 req/s (13.0 ms/req) Request size [B]: 63.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 74.4 avg 78.9 max 83.4 stddev 6.4 (2 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 1117.1 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 304.0 content 95.0 footer 2.0 (total 401.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=0 3xx=1000 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 1.02 system 11.22 (user 7.8% system 86.3% total 94.2%) Net I/O: 34.7 KB/s (0.3*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 ___ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
