Hi- We just finished our app and I tested for performance with httperf. Our setup is browser -> apache2.2-> mod_poxy balancer-> mongrel cluster -> 3 mongrel servers. I have noticed that the total request per second is is about 7.5. When I increase the no of mongrel to 5, it inches up to 8 req/s. My question is how bad or good this number is? We are on a old dell 2400 machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase the req/sec number higher? /thanks thila -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 7/12/06, thila thila <isputnik_98@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi- > We just finished our app and I tested for performance with httperf. Our > setup is browser -> apache2.2-> mod_poxy balancer-> mongrel cluster -> 3 > mongrel servers. > > I have noticed that the total request per second is is about 7.5. When I > increase the no of mongrel to 5, it inches up to 8 req/s. > > > My question is how bad or good this number is? We are on a old dell 2400 > machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase > the req/sec number higher?Is the application in "production" mode?
Joe Van Dyk wrote:> On 7/12/06, thila thila <isputnik_98@yahoo.com> wrote: >> machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase >> the req/sec number higher? > > Is the application in "production" mode?YES, also httpperf tested only the index page, which is a static page under public folder. In other words, even ruby is not at all executed. ie.. we tested only how fast mongrel delivers static pages. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> YES, also httpperf tested only the index page, which is a static page > under public folder. In other words, even ruby is not at all executed. > ie.. we tested only how fast mongrel delivers static pages.Did you test on the same machine or over the network? Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
thila thila wrote:> > My question is how bad or good this number is? We are on a old dell 2400 > machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase > the req/sec number higher? >Well, my creaky old Netfinity (P3 650, 256MB) manages 27.62 trans/sec in Siege against a static page, running 2 Mongrels. Did you install sendfile? Ian.> /thanks > thila-- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:48 AM, thila thila wrote:> Joe Van Dyk wrote: >> On 7/12/06, thila thila <isputnik_98@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to >>> increase >>> the req/sec number higher? >> >> Is the application in "production" mode? > > YES, also httpperf tested only the index page, which is a static page > under public folder. In other words, even ruby is not at all executed. > ie.. we tested only how fast mongrel delivers static pages. >Yeah I would say that you have some other issues with configuration then. I am able to get close to 1000 req/sec for static pages with two or three mongrel servers. ANd around 6-900 req/sec with one mongrel. What platform are you running? Linux, BSD? -Ezra
On 7/12/06, thila thila <isputnik_98@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi- > We just finished our app and I tested for performance with httperf. Our > setup is browser -> apache2.2-> mod_poxy balancer-> mongrel cluster -> 3 > mongrel servers. > > I have noticed that the total request per second is is about 7.5. When I > increase the no of mongrel to 5, it inches up to 8 req/s. > > > My question is how bad or good this number is? We are on a old dell 2400 > machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase > the req/sec number higher? > > /thanks > thilaHave you tried running the load tests with apache and mod_proxy out of the picture? I would try the tests starting with connecting to a single mongrel server directly, then the cluster, then apache.
Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:> On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:48 AM, thila thila wrote: > >> ie.. we tested only how fast mongrel delivers static pages. >> > > > Yeah I would say that you have some other issues with configuration > then. I am able to get close to 1000 req/sec for static pages with > two or three mongrel servers. ANd around 6-900 req/sec with one > mongrel. What platform are you running? Linux, BSD? > > > -EzraWow 1000 req/sec? Probably my configuration is the issue then. I have two servers. 1) the first server has the apache2.2 with mod_proxy_balancer - Old dinky pentium 3 server.. 2) The second server has the mongrel clusters and the mqsql database - Dell 2400 dual cpu pentium 3 900mhz with 1Gig ram. My test was within the LAN network. Do I need to have another apache on the second server for the sendfile to work? Any suggestions? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> Wow 1000 req/sec? Probably my configuration is the issue then. I have > two servers. > > 1) the first server has the apache2.2 with mod_proxy_balancer - Old > dinky pentium 3 server.. > 2) The second server has the mongrel clusters and the mqsql database - > Dell 2400 dual cpu pentium 3 900mhz with 1Gig ram. > > My test was within the LAN network. Do I need to have another apache on > the second server for the sendfile to work? > > Any suggestions?I think that 1000r/s is more apache than anything else. I get around 300-400 with litespeed/mongrel. But, litespeed has no way to handle static requests and proxy dynamic ones that I can see, so mongrel is doing all the crunching. As for dynamic pages, I''ve seen anywhere up to 100r/s or so. This really depends on your app naturally. -- Rick Olson http://techno-weenie.net
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 17:48 +0200, thila thila wrote:> Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > On 7/12/06, thila thila <isputnik_98@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase > >> the req/sec number higher? > > > > Is the application in "production" mode? > > YES, also httpperf tested only the index page, which is a static page > under public folder. In other words, even ruby is not at all executed. > ie.. we tested only how fast mongrel delivers static pages. >Ah, that''s your first problem. Mongrel shouldn''t be serving static pages, apache should. Make sure you got the apache configured to serve static pages and not mongrel first. Then, I think 8 is very low. Low enough that you''ve probably got something wrong with the config. Start by working backwards and isolate each component to see what the problem is. First, see what just one Mongrel does. Then, see how apache does with a static file. Then, see how apache with one mongrel works. Finally, add a mongrel and see if it''s just your rails action. I''ve found that when you start breaking down each piece you run into some stupid option you set, or some simple config change and your app magically does really well. -- Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 18:05 +0200, Ian Webb wrote:> thila thila wrote: > > > > My question is how bad or good this number is? We are on a old dell 2400 > > machine with MySQL also runing ony the box. What can I do to increase > > the req/sec number higher? > > > > Well, my creaky old Netfinity (P3 650, 256MB) manages 27.62 trans/sec in > Siege against a static page, running 2 Mongrels. >Argh, Ian, siege is evil. You are not my friend. :-) Stop using siege.> Did you install sendfile? >Actually, thalia, don''t install this until you make a stock config faster, then add it and make sure it doesn''t make things unstable. The sendfile api is a little flaky on FreeBSD. -- Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?
Well, I installed Apache2.2 on a 2 GHz box with 1 GB RAM, with mod_proxy_balancer and 3 mongrels, and I get approx 6-7 reqs/sec (benched from the same box) for uncached dynamic content... I couldn''t manage to increase it... The config seems correct! But very disappointing... How did you compile Apache2.2? Give us the ./configure arguments please! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.