190, 000 msgs/sec with very short avg response time (about 0.5 ms) for persistent connection case when I punch with only 100 concurrent client threads.
Nicholas Hagen
nicholas.hagen at znetdevelopment.com
Sun Sep 13 11:39:07 EDT 2009
I agree the benchmarks would be good, but I would not rely too heavily
on benchmarks for a specific example. As much as Netty could be
extremely fast in one use case it might be much slower in another.
I'm not saying that is the case, but there are way too many use cases
within networking to reliably create a meaningful benchmark and
synopsis. I think documenting these things and precisely stating the
setup and messaging format is great though as people can come and get
a rough idea based on what their particular protocol is. In the end
people should always test their own situations (maybe even getting
code samples for these various compiled examples as a starting
point). By the way the browser wars are going down this unfortunate
benchmarking path where they have all these different javascript
benchmarks and one browser claims top spot in one and another claims
top spot in another. IMO, it is rather confusing/misleading to the
user.
Anyways, I definately think testing other hardware and situations and
documenting more and more of these cases clearly and precisely will
definitely help users and prolly further prove Netty as one of the
leading performance-based NIO engines.
Thanks,
Nick
=================================
Nicholas Hagen
Software Engineer
www.znetdevelopment.com
=================================
Coming Soon: Push RSS
RSS Viewer for iPhone OS 3
www.znetdevelopment.com/znet/iphone.html
=================================
On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Mike McGrady wrote:
> If you could provide the code, we could use it as a benchmark for
> different machines. That is a suggestion. It would be handy to have
> a simple benchmark application. This might be a start.
>
> MIke
>
> On Sep 13, 2009, at 8:18 AM, huican ping wrote:
>
>> The input is only 55bytes for 190,000 TPS with 100% CPU usage..
>> For 1024bytes input, the TPS I got is 88,500 msgs/sec with 89% CPU
>> usage. (I cannot drives up the CPU usage anymore on server machine).
>>
>> The code is dummy, and I was using a simple decoder inherited from
>> FrameDecoder, and really nothing special. It is for a tcp protocol,
>> and there is just content, and no headers. I also use default worker
>> thread number.
>>
>> I don't know what your protocol is for 76K, if you need to parse
>> headers etc, it is pretty normal.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Utkarsh Srivastava
>> <utkarsh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Could you post the code? Also, what was the size of each of your
>>> messages?
>>> On a dual core box, at 1K messages, I am only able to do 76K
>>> messages per
>>> sec.
>>> Thanks
>>> Utkarsh
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Huican Ping <pinghuican at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello netty users,
>>>>
>>>> I punched a simple netty server which decodes (FrameDecoder,
>>>> checks its
>>>> first and tailer bytes of the input) and returns message back with
>>>> 55
>>>> bytes
>>>> input on my 2way Woodcrest machine: 2 core-2-dual at Intel(R)
>>>> Xeon(R) CPU
>>>> 5160 @3.00GHz
>>>>
>>>> The netty server can handle more than 190,000 msgs/sec with very
>>>> short
>>>> average response time (about 0.5 ms) for persistent connection
>>>> case when I
>>>> punch the server with 100 concurrent client threads.
>>>>
>>>> I got about 180,000 msgs/sec with about 0.28 ms avg response for
>>>> persistent
>>>> connection with 50 concurrent client threads.
>>>>
>>>> The client and server are different machines. They are in the same
>>>> sub-network, but not directly connected on the switch. So the
>>>> average
>>>> response time can be really lower than above.
>>>>
>>>> client output:
>>>> ==============
>>>> |active| message | response time (ms) |avg conn|
>>>> succ
>>>> rt|
>>>> connection |
>>>> time(ms)|thrds | sent| succ| fail| min | avg | max
>>>> |time(ms)|(msg/s)|pend|estb|idle|
>>>> 10007 100 1863171 1863071 0 0.13 0.49 212.78
>>>> 0.00
>>>> 186176.78 0 100 0
>>>> 20011 100 1901832 1901832 0 0.12 0.52 28.14
>>>> 0.00
>>>> 190126.16 0 100 0
>>>> 30014 100 1904729 1904729 0 0.13 0.52 27.09
>>>> 0.00
>>>> 190434.81 0 100 0
>>>> 40017 100 1901270 1901270 0 0.13 0.52 27.25
>>>> 0.00
>>>> 190069.98 0 100 0
>>>> 50019 100 1906704 1906704 0 0.13 0.52 26.16
>>>> 0.00
>>>> 190632.27 0 100 0
>>>> 60023 100 1906676 1906676 0 0.13 0.52 21.63
>>>> 0.00
>>>> 190610.42 0 100 0
>>>>
>>>> It is really impressive, decent and amazing number. A big thanks
>>>> goes to
>>>> Trustin Lee for his amazing work on Netty
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Huican
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://n2.nabble.com/190-000-msgs-sec-with-very-short-avg-response-time-about-0-5-ms-for-persistent-connection-case-when--tp3635215p3635215.html
>>>> Sent from the Netty User Group mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netty-users mailing list
>>>> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netty-users mailing list
>>> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netty-users mailing list
>> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>
> Mike McGrady
> Principal Investigator AF081-028 AFRL SBIR
> Senior Engineer
> Topia Technology, Inc.
> 1.253.720.3365
> mmcgrady at topiatechnology.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-users mailing list
> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
More information about the netty-users
mailing list