[undertow-dev] Undertow Http Server - Handling 2 Millions Requests Per Second Per Instance
Stuart Douglas
sdouglas at redhat.com
Wed Jul 12 18:57:39 EDT 2017
If the kafka code is truly non-blocking then you should not be calling
dispatch() at all in the Undertow code. Thread pool dispatch is very
expensive compared to other operations.
In terms of the response size you might want to
set io.undertow.UndertowOptions#ALWAYS_SET_KEEP_ALIVE to false. By default
undertow will send a Connection: keep-alive header, which can inflate the
response size on these sort of micro benchmarks. It is generally a good
idea to use telnet to connect to both servers and see exactly what the
response is, so you can be sure the response size is the same and you are
doing an accurate comparison (ALWAYS_SET_DATE is another one you may want
to set to false).
In terms of number of threads AFAIK Netty and Undertow have different
thread pool sizes, and the 'ideal' size is very hard to pick by default, as
it depends on a lot of factors. In practice the only way to figure out the
ideal size is by trial and error (more threads does not necessarily mean
faster).
There are also other factors that can affect micro benchmarks like this
that do not affect real world performance. e.g. one that we have had
problems with in the path is IO thread 'clumping', where because all the
benchmark connections are created at the some time one IO thread can end up
with more than its fair share of connections to service. In the real world
this is not a problem, as connections come and go and busier threads will
tend to accept less connections, but to deal with the micro benchmark issue
we now allocate connections to IO threads based on a hash of the TCP
connection metadata. You have to be very very careful in how you design
these sort of benchmarks, as they are very sensitive to even minor changes.
Another thing I will point out is that unless you have some very big
hardware you are unlikely to get 2million requests/sec without using HTTP
pipelining, the underlying network hardware/OS will probably not be able to
perform that many read/write operations per second.
Stuart
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:43 PM, SenthilKumar K <senthilec566 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Douglas , Here is the code for Undertow https://github.com/
> senthilec566/undertow and Netty https://github.com/senthilec566/microHttp
> . Both tested in default settings..
>
> Both Undertow and Netty respond SUCCESS or FAILURE.
>
> I'd love to optimize undertow code and rerun the test case if required...
>
> Another test result:
>
> Undertow:
> ./wrk -c 10000 -d 10m -t 300 -s scripts/post_data.lua -R 500000
> http://undertow:8009/
> Running 10m test @ http://undertow:8009/
> 300 threads and 10000 connections
> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
> Latency 3.70m 2.07m 7.40m 57.73%
> Req/Sec 449.71 6.45 474.00 74.93%
> 80640669 requests in 10.00m, 9.91GB read
> Socket errors: connect 0, read 353, write 0, timeout 448
> Requests/sec: *134457*.31
> Transfer/sec: 16.93MB
>
> Netty:
> ./wrk -c 10000 -d 10m -t 300 -s scripts/post_data.lua -R 500000
> http://netty:8009/
> Running 10m test @ http://netty:8009/
> 300 threads and 10000 connections
> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
> Latency 2.76m 1.54m 5.70m 57.83%
> Req/Sec 763.90 73.21 1.12k 69.15%
> 137216075 requests in 10.00m, 12.14GB read
> Socket errors: connect 0, read 0, write 0, timeout 42
> Requests/sec: *228796*.63
> Transfer/sec: 20.73MB
>
>
> --Senthil
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Also it looks like you are sending more data in the undertow response.
>> Mb/s is very similar, while req/sec is lower.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On 10 Jul. 2017 9:39 am, "Stuart Douglas" <sdouglas at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are they both using the same number of threads? Also what are you doing
>>> in the handler? Are you calling dispatch? Dispatch is relativity slow in
>>> these micro benchmarks, as it dispatches to a thread pool.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> On 9 Jul. 2017 4:34 am, "SenthilKumar K" <senthilec566 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet to try that .. My testcase did not cover tuning no of threads ..
>>> but even if we try to increase number of threads I believe both framework
>>> performance would improve !! Different thoughts ??
>>>
>>> Anyway I like to add another test case by changing threads !!
>>>
>>> --Senthil
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2017 9:38 PM, "Kim Rasmussen" <kr at asseco.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you tried playing around with the number of io and worker threads?
>>>>
>>>> lør. 8. jul. 2017 kl. 17.28 skrev SenthilKumar K <
>>>> senthilec566 at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Any comments on *Undertow Vs Netty* ? Am i doing wrong benchmark
>>>>> testing ?? Should i change benchmark strategy ?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Senthil
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:14 PM, SenthilKumar K <senthilec566 at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for delay in responding to this thread!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who helped me to Optimize Undertow Server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the comparison after benchmarking my use case against Netty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Undertow Vs Netty :*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Test Case 1 :
>>>>>> Simple Request Response ( No Kafka ):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Undertow:*
>>>>>> Running 10m test @ http://198.18.134.13:8009/
>>>>>> 500 threads and 5000 connections
>>>>>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>>>>>> Latency *3.52m * 2.64m 8.96m 54.63%
>>>>>> Req/Sec 376.58 103.18 0.99k 80.53%
>>>>>> 111628942 requests in 10.00m, 13.72GB read
>>>>>> Socket errors: connect 0, read 28, write 0, timeout 2
>>>>>> Requests/sec: *186122.56*
>>>>>> Transfer/sec: 23.43MB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Netty:*
>>>>>> Running 10m test @ http://198.18.134.13:8009/
>>>>>> 500 threads and 5000 connections
>>>>>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>>>>>> Latency *3.77m* 2.10m 7.51m 57.73%
>>>>>> Req/Sec 518.63 31.78 652.00 70.25%
>>>>>> 155406992 requests in 10.00m, 13.82GB read
>>>>>> Socket errors: connect 0, read 49, write 0, timeout 0
>>>>>> Requests/sec: *259107*.30
>>>>>> Transfer/sec: 24.17MB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Test Case 2:*
>>>>>> Request --> Read --> Send it Kafka :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Undertow:*
>>>>>> Running 10m test @ http://198.18.134.13:8009/
>>>>>> 500 threads and 5000 connections
>>>>>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>>>>>> Latency *4.37m * 2.46m 8.72m 57.83%
>>>>>> Req/Sec 267.32 5.17 287.00 74.52%
>>>>>> 80044045 requests in 10.00m, 9.84GB read
>>>>>> Socket errors: connect 0, read 121, write 0, timeout 0
>>>>>> Requests/sec: *133459.79*
>>>>>> Transfer/sec: 16.80MB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Netty:*
>>>>>> Running 10m test @ http://198.18.134.13:8009/
>>>>>> 500 threads and 5000 connections
>>>>>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>>>>>> Latency *3.78m * 2.10m 7.55m 57.79%
>>>>>> Req/Sec 516.92 28.84 642.00 69.60%
>>>>>> 154770536 requests in 10.00m, 13.69GB read
>>>>>> Socket errors: connect 0, read 11, write 0, timeout 101
>>>>>> Requests/sec: *258049.39*
>>>>>> Transfer/sec: 23.38MB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CPU Usage:
>>>>>> *Undertow:*
>>>>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Netty:*
>>>>>> [image: Inline image 2]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Senthil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Bill O'Neil <bill at dartalley.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Can you run the benchmark with the kafka line commented out at
>>>>>>> first and then again with it not commented out?
>>>>>>> 2. What rates were you getting with Jetty and Netty?
>>>>>>> 3. Are you running the tests from the same machine or a different
>>>>>>> one? If its the same machine and its using 20 threads they will be
>>>>>>> contending with undertows IO threads.
>>>>>>> 4. You can probably ignore the POST check if thats all your going to
>>>>>>> accept and its not a public api.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> import io.undertow.server.HttpHandler;
>>>>>>> import io.undertow.server.HttpServerExchange;
>>>>>>> import io.undertow.util.Headers;
>>>>>>> import io.undertow.util.Methods;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> public class DLRHandler implements HttpHandler {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> final public static String _SUCCESS="SUCCESS";
>>>>>>> final public static String _FAILURE="FAILURE";
>>>>>>> final PostToKafka post2Kafka = new PostToKafka();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>> public void handleRequest( final HttpServerExchange exchange)
>>>>>>> throws Exception {
>>>>>>> if (exchange.getRequestMethod().equals(Methods.POST)) {
>>>>>>> exchange.getRequestReceiver().receiveFullString((
>>>>>>> exchangeReq, data) -> {
>>>>>>> //post2Kafka.write2Kafka(data); // write it to
>>>>>>> Kafka
>>>>>>> exchangeReq.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE,
>>>>>>> "text/plain");
>>>>>>> exchangeReq.getResponseSender().send(_SUCCESS);
>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>> (exchangeReq, exception) -> {
>>>>>>> exchangeReq.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE,
>>>>>>> "text/plain");
>>>>>>> exchangeReq.getResponseSender().send(_FAILURE);
>>>>>>> });
>>>>>>> }else{
>>>>>>> throw new Exception("Method GET not supported by Server
>>>>>>> ");
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas at redhat.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The multiple dispatches() are unnecessary (well the second one to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> IO thread is definitely unnecessary, the first one is only required
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> post2Kafka.write2Kafka(data); is a blocking operation and needs to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> executed in a worker thread).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:42 PM, SenthilKumar K <
>>>>>>>> senthilec566 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > After modifying the code below i could see the improvement ( not
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> > slightly ) in server - 65k req/sec.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > import io.undertow.server.HttpHandler;
>>>>>>>> > import io.undertow.server.HttpServerExchange;
>>>>>>>> > import io.undertow.util.Headers;
>>>>>>>> > import io.undertow.util.Methods;
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > public class DLRHandler implements HttpHandler {
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > final public static String _SUCCESS="SUCCESS";
>>>>>>>> > final public static String _FAILURE="FAILURE";
>>>>>>>> > final PostToKafka post2Kafka = new PostToKafka();
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > @Override
>>>>>>>> > public void handleRequest( final HttpServerExchange exchange)
>>>>>>>> throws
>>>>>>>> > Exception {
>>>>>>>> > if (exchange.getRequestMethod().equals(Methods.POST)) {
>>>>>>>> > exchange.getRequestReceiver().receiveFullString((
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq, data) -> {
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq.dispatch(() -> {
>>>>>>>> > post2Kafka.write2Kafka(data); // write it
>>>>>>>> to Kafka
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq.dispatch(exchangeReq.getIoThread(),
>>>>>>>> () ->
>>>>>>>> > {
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE,
>>>>>>>> "text/plain");
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq.getResponseSender
>>>>>>>> ().send(_SUCCESS);
>>>>>>>> > });
>>>>>>>> > });
>>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>>> > (exchangeReq, exception) -> {
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq.getResponseHeaders
>>>>>>>> ().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE,
>>>>>>>> > "text/plain");
>>>>>>>> > exchangeReq.getResponseSender().send(_FAILURE);
>>>>>>>> > });
>>>>>>>> > }else{
>>>>>>>> > throw new Exception("Method GET not supported by
>>>>>>>> Server ");
>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Pls review this and let me know if i'm doing anything wrong here
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> > --Senthil
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Antoine Girard <
>>>>>>>> antoine.girard at ymail.com>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Also, to come back on the JVM warmup, this will give you enough
>>>>>>>> answers:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36198278/why-does-the-jv
>>>>>>>> m-require-warmup
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> For your, it means that you have to run your tests for a few
>>>>>>>> minutes
>>>>>>>> >> before starting your actual measurements.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I am also interested about how Netty / Jetty perform under the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> >> conditions, please post!
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> >> Antoine
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Stuart Douglas <
>>>>>>>> sdouglas at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> Are you actually testing with the 'System.out.println(" Received
>>>>>>>> >>> String ==> "+message);'. System.out is incredibly slow.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> Stuart
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:01 AM, SenthilKumar K <
>>>>>>>> senthilec566 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> > Sorry , I'm not an expert in JVM .. How do we do Warm Up JVM ?
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> > Here is the JVM args to Server:
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> > nohup java -Xmx4g -Xms4g -XX:MetaspaceSize=96m -XX:+UseG1GC
>>>>>>>> >>> > -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=20 -XX:InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent=35
>>>>>>>> >>> > -XX:G1HeapRegionSize=16M -XX:MinMetaspaceFreeRatio=50
>>>>>>>> >>> > -XX:MaxMetaspaceFreeRatio=80 -cp undertow-0.0.1.jar
>>>>>>>> HelloWorldServer
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> > --Senthil
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Antoine Girard
>>>>>>>> >>> > <antoine.girard at ymail.com>
>>>>>>>> >>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>> >> Do you warm up your jvm prior to the testing?
>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> >>> >> Antoine
>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:42 PM, SenthilKumar K
>>>>>>>> >>> >> <senthilec566 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Thanks Bill n Antoine ..
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Here is the updated one : ( tried without Kafka API ) .
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> public class HelloWorldServer {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> public static void main(final String[] args) {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Undertow server = Undertow.builder().addHttpListener(8009,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> "localhost").setHandler(new HttpHandler() {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> @Override
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> public void handleRequest(final HttpServerExchange
>>>>>>>> exchange) throws
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Exception {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> if (exchange.getRequestMethod().equals(Methods.POST)) {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> exchange.getRequestReceiver().receiveFullString(new
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Receiver.FullStringCallback() {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> @Override
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> public void handle(HttpServerExchange
>>>>>>>> exchange,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> String
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> message) {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> System.out.println(" Received String ==>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> "+message);
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> exchange.getResponseSender().s
>>>>>>>> end(message);
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> });
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> } else {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> exchange.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> "text/plain");
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> exchange.getResponseSender().send("FAILURE");
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> }).build();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> server.start();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Oops seems to no improvement :
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Running 1m test @ http://localhost:8009/
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> 100 threads and 1000 connections
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Latency 25.79ms 22.18ms 289.48ms 67.66%
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Req/Sec 437.76 61.71 2.30k 80.26%
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Latency Distribution
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> 50% 22.60ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> 75% 37.83ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> 90% 55.32ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> 99% 90.47ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> 2625607 requests in 1.00m, 2.76GB read
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Requests/sec: 43688.42
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Transfer/sec: 47.08MB
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> :-( :-( ..
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> --Senthil
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Antoine Girard
>>>>>>>> >>> >>> <antoine.girard at ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> You can use the Receiver API, specifically for that
>>>>>>>> purpose.
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> On the exchange, call: getRequestReceiver();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> You will get a receiver object:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> https://github.com/undertow-io
>>>>>>>> /undertow/blob/master/core/src/main/java/io/undertow/io/Rece
>>>>>>>> iver.java
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> On the receiver you can call: receiveFullString, you have
>>>>>>>> to pass it
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> a
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> callback that will be called when the whole body has been
>>>>>>>> read.
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> Please share your results when you test this further!
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> Antoine
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:27 PM, SenthilKumar K
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> <senthilec566 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> Seems to Reading Request body is wrong , So what is the
>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> way
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> of reading request body in undertow ?
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> --Senthil
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:30 PM, SenthilKumar K
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> <senthilec566 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hello Undertow Dev Team ,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I have been working on the use case where i should
>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> http server to serve 1.5 Million Requests per Second per
>>>>>>>> Instance
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Here is the benchmark result of Undertow :
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Running 1m test @ http://127.0.0.1:8009/
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 20 threads and 40 connections
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Latency 2.51ms 10.75ms 282.22ms 99.28%
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Req/Sec 1.12k 316.65 1.96k 54.50%
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Latency Distribution
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 50% 1.43ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 75% 2.38ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 90% 2.90ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 99% 10.45ms
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 1328133 requests in 1.00m, 167.19MB read
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Requests/sec: 22127.92
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Transfer/sec: 2.79MB
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> This is less compared to other frameworks like Jetty and
>>>>>>>> Netty ..
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> originally Undertow is high performant http server ..
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hardware details:
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Xeon CPU E3-1270 v5 machine with 4 cores ( Clock 100
>>>>>>>> MHz, Capacity
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> GHz) , Memory : 32 G , Available memory 31 G.
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I would need Undertow experts to review the server code
>>>>>>>> below and
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> advice me on tuning to achieve my goal( ~1.5 Million
>>>>>>>> requests/sec
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Server :
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Undertow server = Undertow.builder()
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> .addHttpListener(8009, "localhost")
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> .setHandler(new Handler()).build();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> server.start();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Handler.Java
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> final Pooled<ByteBuffer> pooledByteBuffer =
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> exchange.getConnection().getBufferPool().allocate();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> final ByteBuffer byteBuffer =
>>>>>>>> pooledByteBuffer.getResource();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> byteBuffer.clear();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> exchange.getRequestChannel().read(byteBuffer);
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> int pos = byteBuffer.position();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> byteBuffer.rewind();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> byte[] bytes = new byte[pos];
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> byteBuffer.get(bytes);
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> String requestBody = new String(bytes,
>>>>>>>> Charset.forName("UTF-8")
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> );
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> byteBuffer.clear();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> pooledByteBuffer.free();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> final PostToKafka post2Kafka = new PostToKafka();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> try {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> post2Kafka.write2Kafka(requestBody); { This API can
>>>>>>>> handle ~2
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Millions events per sec }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> } catch (Exception e) {
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> e.printStackTrace();
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> exchange.getResponseHeaders()
>>>>>>>> .put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> "text/plain");
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> exchange.getResponseSender().send("SUCCESS");
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> --Senthil
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> undertow-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> >>> > undertow-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> >>> > undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> undertow-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> undertow-dev mailing list
>>>>> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
>>>>
>>>> *Kim Rasmussen*
>>>> Partner, IT Architect
>>>>
>>>> *Asseco Denmark A/S*
>>>> Kronprinsessegade 54
>>>> DK-1306 Copenhagen K
>>>> Mobile: +45 26 16 40 23 <+45%2026%2016%2040%2023>
>>>> Ph.: +45 33 36 46 60 <+45%2033%2036%2046%2060>
>>>> Fax: +45 33 36 46 61 <+45%2033%2036%2046%2061>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> undertow-dev mailing list
>>> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20170713/f97d68d1/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 31196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20170713/f97d68d1/attachment-0002.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25115 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20170713/f97d68d1/attachment-0003.png
More information about the undertow-dev
mailing list