Am 10.08.2013 22:24, schrieb Leif Hedstrom: > On Aug 10, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Reindl Harald <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am 10.08.2013 19:47, schrieb Reindl Harald: >>> i am currently working at my F18 SPEC-file to reflect the latest >>> changes in my packaging and rebuild 3.2.5 ASAP on Fedora >>> 19 so that "yum update" and "yum downgrade" gives a better picture >>> >>> but i doubt that the 3 years old XEON at the company will >>> outperform the one year old IvyBdrige at home with the >>> same environment, benchmarks besides ATS are compareable >>> >>> we will see >> >> Am 10.08.2013 19:37, schrieb Leif Hedstrom: >>> Yeah I've tested it with my normal perf regressions, and 3.3.5 was >>> the same as 3.2.4. In my small object test I get 160,000 qps >> >> on what hardware straight from hell do you get 160 thousand qps? >> however, back to topic...… > > model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz > > I believe Bryan has clocked it at close to 300,000 QPS on modern dual socket > machines
hmmmm - if i find enough spare time i will test ATS on teh host-setup instead the VM, not that i ever will use bare-metal servers, but i am interested :-) >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> >> OK, sorry for the noise, that's why there was a "?" in the subject >> same virtual machine with trafficserver-3.2.5-3.fc19.20130810.rh.x86_64 >> >> Total transferred: 94732065 bytes >> HTML transferred: 64253704 bytes >> Requests per second: 3206.60 [#/sec] (mean) >> Time per request: 62.371 [ms] (mean) >> Time per request: 0.312 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) >> Transfer rate: 2966.48 [Kbytes/sec] received > > I have no idea at this moment, but I'll double check when I get home. So I > understand, you get 90k QPS with 3.2.4 and 3k QPS with 3.3.5 ? no, 3k QPS with both on the same VM it's not the ATS version as thought 90k QPS are impossible here, at least not with a network-stack betweens ATS and "ab" > One thing, did you try clearing the cache after upgrading from 3.3.5? yes, i learned to delete all cache files und on the production machine with raw disk dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=1M count=50 before start with a changed version > As for virtualization, I measure around 5-10x worse performance on > virtualization vs bare metal. > I've tested this on many setups (including AWS), and I've verified it on ATS, > Varnish and Nginx > (they all see the same degradation). we are 100% virtualized for a lot of reasons and it seems the difference here is between VMware ESXi (bare-metal hypervisor) and VMware Workstation (hosted virtualization) which in no tests execpt http-proxy made such a big difference over years most likely the virtual network bare metal versus bridged on a Linux host however, i am still impressed about the difference and the decision to take money in the hands for the vSphere cluster seems to be once more confirmed
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
