[erlang-questions] Cowboy vs Misultin
Loïc Hoguin
essen@REDACTED
Wed Jun 22 16:06:22 CEST 2011
Hello,
Did you fix the many issues in your cowboy application code I reported
in my previous emails? I see you removed the receive after from
misultin, did you remove it from cowboy too? You could very well just be
measuring Erlang's timer modules bad performance there.
Also I see you're not using cowboy_http_req:compact and the hibernate
option for cowboy that is doing it properly (unlike your patch).
And again, you should probably come to IRC and ask for advice from the
other people benchmarking it.
Cheers.
On 06/22/2011 03:14 PM, Andy W. Song wrote:
> OK, the competition comes again. I finally wrote a client that performs
> decently. It's here <https://github.com/awsong/Golang-WebSocket-Client>.
>
> I tested my previous Cowboy first( I changed send_interval from 1000 to
> 900000 of line 64 of src/websocket_handler.erl in cowboy_examples ).
> Here is the version:
> *Cowboy_examples*: 343d002 Initial commit with a default and websocket
> handler.
> *Cowboy*: 5d69825 Add a max_connections transport option, Mon May 9
> 22:01:31 2011
>
> The command line I use on the client is "./conn -c 10000 -n 10". It'll
> create 100K connections, 10K per IP to the server. It takes about 7 and
> half minutes to finish creating these connections. During the creation,
> server CPU usage is about 110%(dual core), client cpu usage is under 20%.
>
> Server memory usage(Cowboy residence memory) :
> Right after Cowboy starts: 525M
> After 100K connection established: 1842M
> After 5M packets passed: 2824M
> After 9M packets passed: 3231M
> After 87.7 M packets passed, 5746M
> [{total,4155518040 <tel:4155518040>},
> {processes,1701318856},
> {processes_used,1701299096},
> {system,2454199184},
> {atom,497457},
> {atom_used,482279},
> {binary,1787851232},
> {code,4041219},
> {ets,41231176}]
> There seems a memory leak. If I don't stop, the memory usage will keep
> going higher. 40% CPU, 1.5 MB/s traffic.
>
> *Latest Cowboy and Cowboy_examples* (same send_interval change). It
> takes about 7 and half minutes to finish creating 100K connections.
> During the creation, server CPU usage is about 110%(dual core), client
> cpu usage is under 20%. After 158.9M packets passed, 1464M residence
> memory used, 30% CPU, 1.5 MB/s traffic, .
>
> *Latest Misultin* from github, with patch (see attachment):
> It takes about 45s to finish creating 100K connections, during creation
> cpu usage is 120%. After creation, residence memory usage is 2684M. And
> it goes down slowly to 1416M after 40M packets are passed, cpu usage is
> about 50%
>
> Another thing worth to note is that when I hit CTRL-C on the client
> side, misultin will quickly destroy the connections and release memory
> and go back to normal. But Cowboy will consume almost all the cpu time
> and stay there for a long time (I didn't have the patience to measure
> how long, so just hit ctrl-c to quick erlang).
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Andy W. Song <wsongcn@REDACTED
> <mailto:wsongcn@REDACTED>> wrote:
>
> BTW, the latest version uses less memory too, about 3.2G for 200K
> connections.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Andy W. Song <wsongcn@REDACTED
> <mailto:wsongcn@REDACTED>> wrote:
>
> Missed one attachment.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Andy W. Song <wsongcn@REDACTED
> <mailto:wsongcn@REDACTED>> wrote:
>
> I tested out the latest Misultin with this change, CPU usage
> is about 2 to 3 percent lower.
>
> With the attached Misultin package, I can still reproduce
> the large packet problem.
>
> With latest version, Misultin doesn't report any error. But
> it doesn't reply to the client either. Seems it just drops
> the packet. Another attached file is the tcpdump result.
>
> I will try Mochiweb later just to compare.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Roberto Ostinelli
> <roberto@REDACTED <mailto:roberto@REDACTED>> wrote:
>
>
> On May 31, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Andy W. Song wrote:
>
>> Would you mind testing it using my C client? Search
>> "->len" and give
>> it a value between 1500 and 2000, hopefully you'll see
>> the result I
>> saw.
>>
>> Regards
>> Andy
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> will do that.
>
> Meanwhile, I've added an undocumented option,
> {ws_no_header, true} so that headers are not duplicated
> in the record and should use less memory. plus, I've
> optimized binary code for websockets.
>
> can you please retry the test so we have a matter of
> comparison?
>
> the only thing you need to change is to add this option
> in misultin initialization, i.e.:
>
> % start misultin http server
> start(Port) ->
> misultin:start_link([
> *{ws_no_header, true},*
> {port, Port}, {loop, fun(Req) -> handle_http(Req, Port)
> end},
> {ws_loop, fun(Ws) -> handle_websocket(Ws) end},
> {ws_autoexit, false}
> ]).
>
> please let me know...
>
> r.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 有志者，事竟成，破釜沉舟，百二秦关终属楚
> 苦心人，天不负，卧薪尝胆，三千越甲可吞吴
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 有志者，事竟成，破釜沉舟，百二秦关终属楚
> 苦心人，天不负，卧薪尝胆，三千越甲可吞吴
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 有志者，事竟成，破釜沉舟，百二秦关终属楚
> 苦心人，天不负，卧薪尝胆，三千越甲可吞吴
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 有志者，事竟成，破釜沉舟，百二秦关终属楚
> 苦心人，天不负，卧薪尝胆，三千越甲可吞吴
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
--
Loïc Hoguin
Dev:Extend
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list