$ curl -s -D - https://www.google.com/ -o /dev/null
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:33:13 GMT
Expires: -1
Cache-Control: private, max-age=0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
P3P: CP="This is not a P3P policy! See http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=151657 for more info."
Server: gws
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN
Set-Cookie: PREF=ID=1111111111111111:FF=0:TM=1446096793:LM=1446096793:V=1:S=LVeGIvKogvfq6VHi; expires=Thu, 31-Dec-2015 16:02:17 GMT; path=/; domain=.google.com
Set-Cookie: NID=72=sAIx-8ox3_AVxn6ymUjBsKzSmAXLwjNRTcV4Cj9ob1YmLkFc-lSJKvRK1kNdn1lIGruh-wH1_vctiRzKSFTG7IkJHSrVY_At_QbacsYgiI_8EOpMLe2cRIxXINj27DVpgnijGx7tKT1TCDirrunO3Bu0D4DVXz3lB0f42ZyJqOCtOJX2hprvbOOc8P8; expires=Fri, 29-Apr-2016 05:33:13 GMT; path=/; domain=.google.com; HttpOnly
Alternate-Protocol: 443:quic,p=1
Alt-Svc: quic="www.google.com:443"; p="1"; ma=600,quic=":443"; p="1"; ma=600
Accept-Ranges: none
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
but Apache Bench has errors for all but one request:
$ ab -n 5 https://www.google.com/
This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 1528965 $>
Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/
Benchmarking www.google.com (be patient).....done
Server Software: gws
Server Hostname: www.google.com
Server Port: 443
SSL/TLS Protocol: TLSv1.2,ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256,2048,128
Document Path: /
Document Length: 18922 bytes
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 1.773 seconds
Complete requests: 5
Failed requests: 4
(Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 4, Exceptions: 0)
Total transferred: 99378 bytes
HTML transferred: 94606 bytes
Requests per second: 2.82 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 354.578 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 354.578 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 54.74 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 158 179 40.8 162 252
Processing: 132 176 79.0 148 316
Waiting: 81 118 80.5 83 262
Total: 292 354 119.5 310 567
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 299
66% 321
75% 321
80% 567
90% 567
95% 567
98% 567
99% 567
100% 567 (longest request)
Why does ab have errors?
Add a -l to the command
It tells Apache Bench to not expect constant length for every response.
This should work:
ab -l -n 5 https://www.google.com/
Output:
This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 1807734 $>
Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/
Benchmarking www.google.com (be patient).....done
Server Software: gws
Server Hostname: www.google.com
Server Port: 443
SSL/TLS Protocol: TLSv1.2,ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305,256,256
TLS Server Name: www.google.com
Document Path: /
Document Length: Variable
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 0.433 seconds
Complete requests: 5
Failed requests: 0
Total transferred: 67064 bytes
HTML transferred: 62879 bytes
Requests per second: 11.55 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 86.588 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 86.588 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 151.27 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 20 20 1.0 20 22
Processing: 63 66 2.7 67 69
Waiting: 62 65 2.8 66 68
Total: 83 86 3.3 87 91
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 85
66% 89
75% 89
80% 91
90% 91
95% 91
98% 91
99% 91
100% 91 (longest request)
AB has categorized these as length errors because it expects the responses to be of the same length. Google probably has some kind of dynamic content being returned on their homepage.
Load Testing with AB ... fake failed requests (length)
Related
Performance test results with Apache Bench.
Performance degrades with increasing concurrency.
Project is here
https://github.com/ohs30359-nobuhara/nginx-php7-alpine
$ ab -n 50 -c 1 "127.0.0.1/sample.html"
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 0.111 seconds
Complete requests: 50
Failed requests: 0
Total transferred: 11700 bytes
HTML transferred: 550 bytes
Requests per second: 448.50 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.230 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 2.230 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 102.49 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.1 0 1
Processing: 1 2 0.9 2 6
Waiting: 1 2 0.8 2 5
Total: 1 2 1.0 2 6
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 2
66% 2
75% 2
80% 2
90% 3
95% 5
98% 6
99% 6
100% 6 (longest request)
$ ab -n 50 -c 50 "127.0.0.1/sample.html"
Concurrency Level: 50
Time taken for tests: 0.034 seconds
Complete requests: 50
Failed requests: 0
Total transferred: 11700 bytes
HTML transferred: 550 bytes
Requests per second: 1480.56 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 33.771 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.675 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 338.33 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 4 2.1 4 8
Processing: 9 18 5.2 20 24
Waiting: 2 18 5.5 20 24
Total: 9 23 5.6 25 30
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 25
66% 26
75% 26
80% 27
90% 29
95% 29
98% 30
99% 30
100% 30 (longest request)
The HTML returned here only displays characters that do not contain js or css.
I don't think the load will drop much with this load,
so is there a problem with nginx settings?
I am load testing my api(nginx) with siege.Api is forwarding POST request from nginx to kafka rest server running at 8082.
I am running siege from four ec2 machines. Everytime I can see siege stops hitting for some time and then resume. So I forcefuly break the siege with Ctrl+C and I can see following:
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.01 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.02 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.03 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.03 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.02 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
^C
Lifting the server siege.. done.
Transactions: 10699 hits
Availability: 100.00 %
Elapsed time: 26.71 secs
Data transferred: 1.23 MB
Response time: 0.05 secs
Transaction rate: 400.56 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.05 MB/sec
Concurrency: 20.11
Successful transactions: 10699
Failed transactions: 0
Longest transaction: 1.67
Shortest transaction: 0.00
If I dont stop it then it will resume hitting after sometime and then again stop hitting. Again when I forcefully stop it:
HTTP/1.1 200 0.06 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.07 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.04 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.03 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
HTTP/1.1 200 0.04 secs: 121 bytes ==> POST http://my-ip/topics/jsontest
^C
Lifting the server siege.. done.
Transactions: 21399 hits
Availability: 100.00 %
Elapsed time: 133.88 secs
Data transferred: 2.47 MB
Response time: 2.97 secs
Transaction rate: 159.84 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.02 MB/sec
Concurrency: 474.16
Successful transactions: 21399
Failed transactions: 0
Longest transaction: 63.23
Shortest transaction: 0.00
Now again it was able to hit 21399-10699=10700 roughly same hits. SO I want to understand why it stops hitting for some time after 10699 hits? limitation of ec2-machine? It just reduce my transaction rate because of waiting time it take after 10699 hits. Which I dont want. THis is happening on all four machines. Now my api is on a ec2 instance itself. But I am able to hit 10699 times from each of four machines. But transaction rate is very low.
Any help appreciated!!
I used bellow command:
ab -k -n 1 -c 1 -v 5 $URL
and got:
LOG: header received:
Blockquote
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-length: 228
content-type: application/octet-stream
date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:09:27 GMT
expires: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:10:27 GMT
cache-control: private, max-age=60
last-modified: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:02:46 GMT
connection: keep-alive`
LOG: Response code = 200
..done
...
Document Length: 0 bytes
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 0.019 seconds
Complete requests: 1
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Keep-Alive requests: 1
Total transferred: 263 bytes
HTML transferred: 0 bytes
Requests per second: 52.44 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 19.068 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 19.068 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 13.47 [Kbytes/sec] received
ab received the header: content-length: 228, but the Document Length is 0 bytes.
curl the $URL works just fine and obtained 228 bytes.
So what's wrong with it? Thanks!
It turned out to be a ApacheBench bug that it doesn't accept lower cased content-length header.
I have just built a proof of concept for an asp.net MVC controller to (1) generate a barcode from user input using barcode rendering framework and (2) embed it in a PDF document using wkhtmltopdf.exe
Before telling my client it's a working solution, I want to know it's not going to bring down their website. My main concern is long-term reliability -- whether for instance creating and disposing the unmanaged system process for wkhtmltopdf.exe might leak something. (Peak performance and load is not expected to be such an issue - only a few requests per minute at peak).
So, I run a couple of tests from the Windows command line:
(1) 1,000 Requests in Sequence (ie 1 at a time)
for /l %i in (1,1,1000) do curl ^
"http://localhost:8003/Home/Test?text=Iteration_%i___012345&scale=2&height=50" -o output.pdf
(2) Up to 40 requests sent within 2 seconds
for /l %i in (1,1,40) do start "Curl %i" curl ^
"http://localhost:8003/Home/Test?text=Iteration_%i___012345&scale=2&height=50" -o output%i.pdf
And I record some performance counters in perfmon before, during & after. Specifically I look at total processes, threads, handles, memory, disk use on the machine and on the IIS process specifically.
So, my questions:
1) What would you consider acceptable evidence that the the solution looks to be at low risk of bringing down the server? Would you amend what I've done, or would you do something completely different?
2) Given my concern is reliability, I think that the 'Before' vs 'After' figures are the ones I most care about. Agree or not?
3) Looking at the Before vs After figures, the only concern I see is the 'Processes Total Handle Count'. I conclude that launching wkhtmltopdf.exe nearly a thousand times has probably not leaked anything or destabilised the machine. But I might be wrong and should run the same tests for hours or days to reduce the level of doubt. Agree or not?
(The risk level: A couple of people's jobs might be on the line if it went pear-shaped. Revenue on the site is £1,000s per hour).
My perfmon results were as follows.
700 Requests in Sequence
1-5 Mins 10 Mins
Counter Before Test Min Ave Max After Test
System
System Processes 95 97 100 101 95
System Threads 1220 1245 1264 1281 1238
Memory Available MB 4888 4840 4850 4868 4837
Memory % Committed 23 24 24 24 24
Processes Total Handle Cou 33255 34147 34489 34775 34029
Processor % Processor Time 4 to 30 40 57 78 1 to 30
Physical Disk % Disk Time 1 0 7 75 0 to 30
IIS Express
% Processor Time 0 0 2 6 0
Handle Count 610 595 640 690 614
Thread Count 34 35 35 35 35
Working Set 138 139 139 139 139
IO Data KB/sec 0 453 491 691 0
20 Requests sent within 2 seconds followed by 40 Requests sent within 3 seconds
1-5 Mins 10 Mins
Counter Before Test Min Ave Max After Test
System
System Processes 95 98 137 257 96
System Threads 1238 1251 1425 1913 1240
Memory Available MB 4837 4309 4694 4818 4811
Memory % Committed 24 24 25 29 24
Processes Total Handle Cou 34029 34953 38539 52140 34800
Processor % Processor Time 1 to 30 1 48 100 1 to 10
Physical Disk % Disk Time 0 to 30 0 7 136 0 to 10
IIS Express
% Processor Time 0 0 1 29 0
Handle Count 610 664 818 936 834
Thread Count 34 37 50 68 37
Working Set 138 139 142 157 141
IO Data KB/sec 0 0 186 2559 0
I have pretty straightforward setup of CouchDB on my Mint/Debian box. My Java webapp was sufferring rather long delays on querying CouchDB, so I started to seek for the causes.
EDIT: The query pattern is lots of small queries and small JSON objects (like 300 bytes up / 1Kbyte down).
Wireshark dumps are pretty nice, showing mostly 3-5 millis request-response turnaround. JVM frame sampling showed me that socket code (client side queries to the Couch) is somewhat busy, but nothing remarkable. Then I tried to profile the same with ApacheBench and oops: I currently see that keep-alive introduces steady extra 39ms delay over non-persistent setups.
Does anyone know how to explain this? Maybe persistent connections increase the congestion window on the TCP layer and then are idling out due to TCP_WAIT and small request/response sizes, or something like that?
Should this option (TCP_WAIT) be ever switched ON for loopback tcp connections?
w#mint ~ $ uname -a
Linux mint 2.6.39-2-486 #1 Tue Jul 5 02:52:23 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux
w#mint ~ $ curl http://127.0.0.1:5984/
{"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.1.1"}
running with keep alive, average 40 millis per request
w#mint ~ $ ab -n 1024 -c 1 -k http://127.0.0.1:5984/
>>>snip
Server Software: CouchDB/1.1.1
Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1
Server Port: 5984
Document Path: /
Document Length: 40 bytes
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 41.001 seconds
Complete requests: 1024
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Keep-Alive requests: 1024
Total transferred: 261120 bytes
HTML transferred: 40960 bytes
Requests per second: 24.98 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 40.040 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 40.040 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 6.22 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 1 40 1.4 40 48
Waiting: 0 1 0.7 1 8
Total: 1 40 1.3 40 48
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 40
>>>snip
95% 40
98% 41
99% 44
100% 48 (longest request)
No keepalive, and voila - 1 ms per request, mostly.
w#mint ~ $ ab -n 1024 -c 1 http://127.0.0.1:5984/
>>>snip
Time taken for tests: 1.080 seconds
Complete requests: 1024
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 236544 bytes
HTML transferred: 40960 bytes
Requests per second: 948.15 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 1.055 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.055 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 213.89 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 1 1 1.0 1 11
Waiting: 1 1 0.9 1 11
Total: 1 1 1.0 1 11
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 1
>>>snip
80% 1
90% 2
95% 3
98% 5
99% 6
100% 11 (longest request)
Okay, now with keep-alive on but also asking to close the connection via http header. Also 1 ms per request or so.
w#mint ~ $ ab -n 1024 -c 1 -k -H 'Connection: close' http://127.0.0.1:5984/
>>>snip
Time taken for tests: 1.131 seconds
Complete requests: 1024
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Keep-Alive requests: 0
Total transferred: 236544 bytes
HTML transferred: 40960 bytes
Requests per second: 905.03 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 1.105 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.105 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 204.16 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 1 1 1.2 1 14
Waiting: 0 1 1.1 1 13
Total: 1 1 1.2 1 14
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 1
>>>snip
80% 1
90% 2
95% 3
98% 6
99% 7
100% 14 (longest request)
Yeah, this is related to tcp socket setup options. This configuration now leveled off all three cases at 1ms per request.
[httpd]
socket_options = [{nodelay, true}]
See this for details:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Performance#Network