I want to create a load test for a feature of my app. It’s using a Google App Engine and a VM. The user sends HTTP requests to the App Engine. It’s realistic that this Engine gets thousands of requests in a few seconds. So I want to create a load test, where I send 20.000 - 50.000 in a timeframe of 1-10 seconds.
How would you solve this problem?
I started to try using Google Cloud Task, because it seems perfect for this. You schedule HTTP requests for a specific timepoint. The docs say that there is a limit of 500 tasks per second per queue. If you need more tasks per second, you can split this tasks into multiple queues. I did this, but Google Cloud Tasks does not execute all the scheduled task at the given timepoint. One queue needs 2-5 minutes to execute 500 requests, which are all scheduled for the same second :thinking_face:
I also tried a TypeScript script running asynchronous node-fetch requests, but I need for 5.000 requests 77 seconds on my macbook.
I don't think you can get 50.000 HTTP requests "in a few seconds" from "your macbook", it's better to consider going for a special load testing tool (which can be deployed onto GCP virtual machine in order to minimize network latency and traffic costs)
The tool choice is up to you, either you need to have powerful enough machine type so it would be able to conduct 50k requests "in a few seconds" from a single virtual machine or the tool needs to have the feature of running in clustered mode so you could kick off several machines and they would send the requests together at the same moment of time.
Given you mention TypeScript you might want to try out k6 tool (it doesn't scale though) or check out Open Source Load Testing Tools: Which One Should You Use? to see what are other options, none of them provides JavaScript API however several don't require programming languages knowledge at all
A tool you could consider using is siege.
This is Linux based and to prevent any additional cost by testing from an outside system out of GCP.
You could deploy siege on a relatively large machine or a few machines inside GCP.
It is fairly simple to set up, but since you mention that you need 20-50k in a span of a few seconds, siege by default only allows 255 requests per second. You can make this larger, though, so it can fit your needs.
You would need to play around on how many connections a machine can establish, since each machine will have a certain limit based on CPU, Memory and number of network sockets. You could just increase the -c number, until the machine gives an "Error: system resources exhausted" error or something similar. Experiment with what your virtual machine on GCP can handle.
I am trying to make a simple general purpose multi-threaded async downloader in python.How many parallel connections can be generally be made to a server with minimum risk of being banned or rate limited.
I am aware that network will be a limiting in some cases but lets assume in this case that network isn't an issue in this case for the sake of discussion.I/O is also done asynchronously.
According to Browserscope , browsers make a maximum of 17 connections at a time.
However according to my research , most download managers download files in multi-part and make 8+ connections per file.
1.How many files can be downloaded at a time ?
2.How many chunks for a single can be downloaded at one time ?
3.What should be the minimum size of those chunks to make it worth creating the overhead of creating parallel connections ?
It depends.
While some servers tolerate a high number of connections, others don't. General web servers might be more on the high side (low two digit), file hosters might be more sensitive.
There's little to say unless you can check the server's configuration or just try and remember for the next time when your ban has timed out.
You should however watch your bandwidth. Once you max out your access line there's no gain in further increasing the connections.
We are making an application involving a server(tomcat, apache, linux) and multiple mobile clients(Android, iPhone, Windows, Nokia J2ME).
Normally the clients and the server will communicate using http.
I would like to know the download and upload speeds of the client from the http request that it made.
Ideally I would not like to upload a file and download a file to come up with these speeds. I am assuming that there might be some thing at the HTTP protocol level that can give me this, or some lower layer of the network.
If only it were that simple.
Even where the bandwidth and latency of a network are very well defined, the actual throughput will be limited by the congestion window and where the end points are in establishing the slow start threshold. These can affect throughput by a factor of 20 or more.
There's nothing in HTTP which will provide metrics for these. Some TCP stacks will expose limited information about throughput (as used by iftop, iptraf).
However if you really want to gather useful metrics on HTTP throughput, then you need to start shoving data across the network - have a look at yahoo boomerang for an implementation.
If the http connection goes to the Apache server first, you can use Apache Bench to do all sorts of load testing. It comes with apache and can be invoked with something like the following.
Suppose we want to see how fast Yahoo can handle 100 requests, with a maximum of 10 requests running concurrently:
ab -n 100 -c 10 http://www.yahoo.com/
HTTP does not deal with connection speeds. Although I could imagine some solution that involves some HTTP (reverse) proxy that estimates speeds on a connection and sets custom headers to pass this info. You would also need to to associate stats of different connections with particular client. I have not seen yet a readily available solution for this.
Also note that
network traffic can be buffered or shaped so download speed may depend on amount of data transferred or previous load of network. So even downloading file would not be accurate.
Amount of data transferred depends on protocol level (payload wrapped in HTTP wrapped in gzip wrapped in TLS wrapped TCP). Which one do you want to measure? Or what do you want to achieve with this measured speed?
I've seen some Real User Monitoring (RUM) tools that can do this passively (they get a feed from a SPAN port or network TAP infront of the servers at the data centre)
There are probably ways of integrating the data they produce into your applications but I'm not sure it would be easy or perhaps given the way latency and bandwidth can 'dynamically' change on a mobile network that accurate.
I guess the real thing to focus on is the design of the app, how much data is travelling across the network, how you can minimise it etc.
Other thing to consider is whether you could offer a solution that allows some of the application to be hosted in the telco's POPs (some telcos route all their towers back to a central pop, others have multiple POPs)
How to test the performance of an http server that serves and accepts only JSON requests (post and get)? I'm new to web testing, so tell me if I'm trying to do it in incorrect way.
I want to test if:
server is capable of handling hundreds of simultaneous connections.
server is capable to serve thousands requests per second.
server does not crash or get stuck when the number of requests exceeds server capabilities, and continues to run normally when the number of requests drops below average.
One way is to write some logic that repeats certain actions per run, and run multiple of them.
PS: Ideally, the tool/method should support compression like gzip as an option.
You can try JMeter and it's HTTPSampler.
About gzip. I've never used it in JMeter, but it seems it can:
How to get JMeter to request gzipped content?
Apache Bench (ab) is a command line tool that's great for these kinds of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApacheBench
ab -n 100 -c 10 http://www.yahoo.com/
If you are new to web testing then there are a lot of factors that you need to take into account. At the most basic level you want to do the things you have outlined.
Beyond this you need to think about how poorly performing clients might impact your service eg. keeping connections alive, sending malformed requests etc. These may translate into exceptions on the server which might in turn have additional impact (due to logging or slower execution). This means that you have to think of ways to break the service and monitor events that have an impact at higher scales.
Microsoft have a fairly good introduction to performance testing for web applications.
Say if I was to get shared, virtual or dedicated hosting, I read somewhere a server/machine can only handle 64,000 TCP connections at one time, is this true? How many could any type of hosting handle regardless of bandwidth? I'm assuming HTTP works over TCP.
Would this mean only 64,000 users could connect to the website, and if I wanted to serve more I'd have to move to a web farm?
In short:
You should be able to achieve in the order of millions of simultaneous active TCP connections and by extension HTTP request(s). This tells you the maximum performance you can expect with the right platform with the right configuration.
Today, I was worried whether IIS with ASP.NET would support in the order of 100 concurrent connections (look at my update, expect ~10k responses per second on older ASP.Net Mono versions). When I saw this question/answers, I couldn't resist answering myself, many answers to the question here are completely incorrect.
Best Case
The answer to this question must only concern itself with the simplest server configuration to decouple from the countless variables and configurations possible downstream.
So consider the following scenario for my answer:
No traffic on the TCP sessions, except for keep-alive packets (otherwise you would obviously need a corresponding amount of network bandwidth and other computer resources)
Software designed to use asynchronous sockets and programming, rather than a hardware thread per request from a pool. (ie. IIS, Node.js, Nginx... webserver [but not Apache] with async designed application software)
Good performance/dollar CPU / Ram. Today, arbitrarily, let's say i7 (4 core) with 8GB of RAM.
A good firewall/router to match.
No virtual limit/governor - ie. Linux somaxconn, IIS web.config...
No dependency on other slower hardware - no reading from harddisk, because it would be the lowest common denominator and bottleneck, not network IO.
Detailed Answer
Synchronous thread-bound designs tend to be the worst performing relative to Asynchronous IO implementations.
WhatsApp can handle a million WITH traffic on a single Unix flavoured OS machine - https://blog.whatsapp.com/index.php/2012/01/1-million-is-so-2011/.
And finally, this one, http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/13/the-secret-to-10-million-concurrent-connections-the-kernel-i.html, goes into a lot of detail, exploring how even 10 million could be achieved. Servers often have hardware TCP offload engines, ASICs designed for this specific role more efficiently than a general purpose CPU.
Good software design choices
Asynchronous IO design will differ across Operating Systems and Programming platforms. Node.js was designed with asynchronous in mind. You should use Promises at least, and when ECMAScript 7 comes along, async/await. C#/.Net already has full asynchronous support like node.js. Whatever the OS and platform, asynchronous should be expected to perform very well. And whatever language you choose, look for the keyword "asynchronous", most modern languages will have some support, even if it's an add-on of some sort.
To WebFarm?
Whatever the limit is for your particular situation, yes a web-farm is one good solution to scaling. There are many architectures for achieving this. One is using a load balancer (hosting providers can offer these, but even these have a limit, along with bandwidth ceiling), but I don't favour this option. For Single Page Applications with long-running connections, I prefer to instead have an open list of servers which the client application will choose from randomly at startup and reuse over the lifetime of the application. This removes the single point of failure (load balancer) and enables scaling through multiple data centres and therefore much more bandwidth.
Busting a myth - 64K ports
To address the question component regarding "64,000", this is a misconception. A server can connect to many more than 65535 clients. See https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/48283/is-a-tcp-server-limited-to-65535-clients/48284
By the way, Http.sys on Windows permits multiple applications to share the same server port under the HTTP URL schema. They each register a separate domain binding, but there is ultimately a single server application proxying the requests to the correct applications.
Update 2019-05-30
Here is an up to date comparison of the fastest HTTP libraries - https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r16&hw=ph&test=plaintext
Test date: 2018-06-06
Hardware used: Dell R440 Xeon Gold + 10 GbE
The leader has ~7M plaintext reponses per second (responses not connections)
The second one Fasthttp for golang advertises 1.5M concurrent connections - see https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp
The leading languages are Rust, Go, C++, Java, C, and even C# ranks at 11 (6.9M per second). Scala and Clojure rank further down. Python ranks at 29th at 2.7M per second.
At the bottom of the list, I note laravel and cakephp, rails, aspnet-mono-ngx, symfony, zend. All below 10k per second. Note, most of these frameworks are build for dynamic pages and quite old, there may be newer variants that feature higher up in the list.
Remember this is HTTP plaintext, not for the Websocket specialty: many people coming here will likely be interested in concurrent connections for websocket.
This question is a fairly difficult one. There is no real software limitation on the number of active connections a machine can have, though some OS's are more limited than others. The problem becomes one of resources. For example, let's say a single machine wants to support 64,000 simultaneous connections. If the server uses 1MB of RAM per connection, it would need 64GB of RAM. If each client needs to read a file, the disk or storage array access load becomes much larger than those devices can handle. If a server needs to fork one process per connection then the OS will spend the majority of its time context switching or starving processes for CPU time.
The C10K problem page has a very good discussion of this issue.
To add my two cents to the conversation a process can have simultaneously open a number of sockets connected equal to this number (in Linux type sytems) /proc/sys/net/core/somaxconn
cat /proc/sys/net/core/somaxconn
This number can be modified on the fly (only by root user of course)
echo 1024 > /proc/sys/net/core/somaxconn
But entirely depends on the server process, the hardware of the machine and the network, the real number of sockets that can be connected before crashing the system
It looks like the answer is at least 12 million if you have a beefy server, your server software is optimized for it, you have enough clients. If you test from one client to one server, the number of port numbers on the client will be one of the obvious resource limits (Each TCP connection is defined by the unique combination of IP and port number at the source and destination).
(You need to run multiple clients as otherwise you hit the 64K limit on port numbers first)
When it comes down to it, this is a classic example of the witticism that "the difference between theory and practise is much larger in practise than in theory" - in practise achieving the higher numbers seems to be a cycle of a. propose specific configuration/architecture/code changes, b. test it till you hit a limit, c. Have I finished? If not then d. work out what was the limiting factor, e. go back to step a (rinse and repeat).
Here is an example with 2 million TCP connections onto a beefy box (128GB RAM and 40 cores) running Phoenix http://www.phoenixframework.org/blog/the-road-to-2-million-websocket-connections - they ended up needing 50 or so reasonably significant servers just to provide the client load (their initial smaller clients maxed out to early, eg "maxed our 4core/15gb box # 450k clients").
Here is another reference for go this time at 10 million: http://goroutines.com/10m.
This appears to be java based and 12 million connections: https://mrotaru.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/12-million-concurrent-connections-with-migratorydata-websocket-server/
Note that HTTP doesn't typically keep TCP connections open for any longer than it takes to transmit the page to the client; and it usually takes much more time for the user to read a web page than it takes to download the page... while the user is viewing the page, he adds no load to the server at all.
So the number of people that can be simultaneously viewing your web site is much larger than the number of TCP connections that it can simultaneously serve.
in case of the IPv4 protocol, the server with one IP address that listens on one port only can handle 2^32 IP addresses x 2^16 ports so 2^48 unique sockets. If you speak about a server as a physical machine, and you are able to utilize all 2^16 ports, then there could be maximum of 2^48 x 2^16 = 2^64 unique TCP/IP sockets for one IP address. Please note that some ports are reserved for the OS, so this number will be lower. To sum up:
1 IP and 1 port --> 2^48 sockets
1 IP and all ports --> 2^64 sockets
all unique IPv4 sockets in the universe --> 2^96 sockets
There are two different discussions here: One is how many people can connect to your server. This one has been answered adequately by others, so I won't go into that.
Other is how many ports yours server can listen on? I believe this is where the 64K number came from. Actually, TCP protocol uses a 16-bit identifier for a port, which translates to 65536 (a bit more than 64K). This means that you can have that many different "listeners" on the server per IP Address.
I think that the number of concurrent socket connections one web server can handle largely depends on the amount of resources each connection consumes and the amount of total resource available on the server barring any other web server resource limiting configuration.
To illustrate, if every socket connection consumed 1MB of server resource and the server has 16GB of RAM available (theoretically) this would mean it would only be able to handle (16GB / 1MB) concurrent connections. I think it's as simple as that... REALLY!
So regardless of how the web server handles connections, every connection will ultimately consume some resource.