We're using ATS in production too. In our environment, we use ATS as reverse proxy, serving thousands of connection for social games and website, behind IP virtual server. Till now, I dont have anything to complaint about ATS but, look at result of our benchmarking and service monitoring, ATS is as good as SQUID and Varnish currently do, I meant 3 are good and I dont see TS is better. We dont use clustering function, because it's (maybe) broken or untested, undocumented, and maybe not stable, we cannot bring it to production environment. I attach to this email screenshot of IP virtual server, it shows number of connection ATS is serving for our social game. Hope it's worth to let you give ATS a try.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Mav Peri <[email protected]> wrote: > We are using ATS in production and we have seen it serving up to around up > to 5k requests per second on dynamic content. This was in a cluster of EC2 > instances and not a single physical server with several objects being in > the kb. > > It works well but if the origin server becomes congested ATS is missing > functionality to serve stale if congested. I have observed that this > results in ATS being unable to catch up under heavy load even if the origin > server is not congested. Eventually it does catch up but the behaviour is > far from desirable. > > Another big limitation at present is that the ICP functionality is broken > and there is no proper documentation on implementing parent http (if that > would be suitable) so you will have to rely on trial and error and any help > the guys on this mailing can provide. The lack of ICP is not to be > underestimated. It is a waste of resources which increases load on your > origin servers. > > From: Ron Tsoref <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:44:03 +0200 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Real-world numbers > > Has anybody released numbers of ATS performance in real-world scenario? I > mean, performance of ATS serving images, CSS/JavaScript files, etc. (I > don't mean 100 bytes objects servering performance, as this the only thing > I found.) > > Anything related to the subject is more than welcome! > > Ron > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- --- hungnv
<<attachment: screen.png>>
