[erlang-questions] Cowboy vs Misultin
Loïc Hoguin
essen@REDACTED
Wed Jun 22 16:11:47 CEST 2011
Sorry for the double post, but in your attached misultin patch:
+ erlang:ibernate(?MODULE, ws_loop, [ServerRef, Socket, L,
WsHandleLoopPid, SocketMode, WsAutoExit]).
you meant erlang:hibernate, right?
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