trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 3.3.5: performance regression?
Date Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:24:58 GMT

On Aug 10, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> 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.


> ____________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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 ?

One thing, did you try clearing the cache after upgrading from 3.3.5 ? Or is it running with
a fresh cache? We should detect that the cache has to be reinitialized, but again making sure.

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).

-- Leif


Mime
View raw message