How much traffic can one web server handle? What's the best way to see if we're beyond that?
I have an ASP.Net application that has a couple hundred users. Aspects of it are fairly processor intensive, but thus far we have done fine with only one server to run both SqlServer and the site. It's running Windows Server 2003, 3.4 GHz with 3.5 GB of RAM.
But lately I've started to notice slows at various times, and I was wondering what's the best way to determine if the server is overloaded by the usage of the application or if I need to do something to fix the application (I don't really want to spend a lot of time hunting down little optimizations if I'm just expecting too much from the box).
What you need is some info on Capacity Planning..
Capacity planning is the process of planning for growth and forecasting peak usage periods in order to meet system and application capacity requirements. It involves extensive performance testing to establish the application's resource utilization and transaction throughput under load. First, you measure the number of visitors the site currently receives and how much demand each user places on the server, and then you calculate the computing resources (CPU, RAM, disk space, and network bandwidth) that are necessary to support current and future usage levels.
If you have access to some profiling tools (such as those in the Team Suite edition of Visual Studio) you can try to set up a testing server and running some synthetic requests against it and see if there's any specific part of the code taking unreasonably long to run.
You should probably check some graphs of CPU and memory usage over time before doing this, to see if it can even be that. (A number alike to the UNIX "load average" could be a useful metric, I don't know if Windows has anything like it. Basically the average number of threads that want CPU time for every time-slice.)
Also check the obvious, that you aren't running out of bandwidth.
Measure, measure, measure. Rico Mariani always says this, and he's right.
Measure req/sec, RAM, CPU, Sessions, etc.
You may come up with a caching strategy (Output caching, data caching, caching dependencies, and so on.)
See also how your SQL Server is doing... indexes are a good place to start but not the only thing to look at..
On that hardware, a .NET application should be able to serve about 200-400 requests per second. If you have only a few hundred users, I doubt you are seeing even 2 requests per second, so I think you have a lot of capacity on that box, even with SQL server running.
Without know all of the details, I would say no, you will not see any performance improvement by adding servers.
By the way, if you're not using the Output Cache, I would start there.
Related
We got a high traffic website which generates a lot of I/O. Within 10 minutes it has been reading over 10 gb of data (w3wp in question seen in task manager). For memory and application hangs I have been using WinDbg with success. But I don't know how I can find the object(s) / method(s) within a process which are responsible for the highest I/O.
Is this even possible?
Edit
The question is: Is there a way to profile I/O operations in a .NET assembly, say: list of threads sorted by highest disk I/O (or something similar that would help me where to look)
ANTS Performance Profiler
I have used this tool to great success - dealing with finding the specific instructions which are causing ~512GB of memory on a high-volume web farm getting chewed up within 5-10 minutes. Sounds like a very similar situation as yours.
Now, to be realistic - it's not going to magically solve your problem. It still requires a lot of setup, thorough analysis and detective work. But this tool definitely took the problem from "practically unsolvable" to "solvable within days".
Update:
As I mentioned in the comments (and Ben Emmett echoed), we can use ANTS to monitor memory, file system handles - pretty much any resource consumption and drill down the call stack to see the effects of specific routines.
I came up with this tool AppDynamics Lite which displays your application calls costs and performance in a visual way. It might help you to find out which functions are making the most costy IO operations.
Quoting;
Understand the health of your CLR with key metrics like response time, throughput, exception rate, and garbage collection time as well as key system resource like CPU, memory and disk I/O.
Worth giving a shot as it is trial/free for 30 days. Hope it helps.
Ps: I'm not affiliated with AppDynamics in any way.
You can use the (free) Windows Performance Toolkit from Windows 8 which does run also on Windows Vista and later. There you can turn on system wide profiling to see what was going on in all processes at once. No instrumentation necessary. Only one reboot is required to set an arcane registry key which is done by WPRUI.exe automatically.
With XPerf you could enable IO Init stack walking so that a call stack is taken for every IO which is started. The only issue is that the stacks will be broken for 64 bit processes which means that you will see only the first method above the BCL methods of your code because there is a Windows 7 bug in the stackwalking capabilities of the OS.
A workaround is to Ngen your assemblies or move to Server 2012 or switch to x86 for profiling to see deeper call stacks.
You will see all file IO and CPU activity even without any call stacks and the file names along how long the hard disc was used. That should give you good information which part of your app is causing the disc IO. From the partial call stacks you should be able to pinpoint your issue even without full stacks.
The tool will give you much more insight than any commercially available profiler at the expense that you need to learn how to use it. Since the call stacks do not end at your code or in user mode but in the kernel you can also determine if e.g. the virus scanner is causing significant IO delays. But you need to know how your processor does work. This toolset was originally aimed at kernel devs which explains why you see so many useless columns.
In the picture below you see file IO and CPU consumption stacked. When you select your high IO file in the disc IO graph it will highlight in the CPU consumption all related call stacks which were taken at the same time while the IO was active. This way you can diretly navigate from the IO to your potentially blocked threads.
I am writing a High Performance ASP.NET Json API with soon > 1000 Request/Second. All my logic and processing is done in an IHttpHandler. I measured via Stopwatch Class and the handler finishes a request in around 0,1 - 0,5 Millisecond.
But it seems IIS and/or other HTTPHandlers (Modules?) are taking away a lot of performance. Can i measure that somehow ? How much overhead will a request produce in IIS when configured for best performance ?
Will removing all those HTTPHandlers help, or are there other tricks to speed it up? I dont need much of the ASP.NET Featureset besides Session (could even workaround that if it give a significant performance boost).
Measuring performance of a web server is no trivial task. A few things to consider:
Find the actual bottleneck. This can be memory, disk access, caching, database access, network latency etc. Use a memory profiler, or other performance profiler to find out.
Use WireShark to find the difference between how long the request is on your machine and how long your code runs.
Try other configurations. Give ASP.NET more memory. Upgrade the test system. I.e., going from 8GB / 2.5GHz with 600 requests/sec to 16GB / 3.0GHz can yield 6500 requests/sec. Performance growth is often not linear. See this document from Microsoft.
Consider adding an extra machine. This can yield up to a 50 or even higher performance upgrade depending on how you configure it. See again that document from MS.
Check these hints by Jon Skeet. The comment thread reveals some non-obvious potential bottlenecks as well.
NOTE 1: know your tools. ASP.NET runs each request in its own thread. Thread swapping is faster than process swapping, but it still requires time. If other handlers take time because they are in the request chain, it's beneficial to disable them.
NOTE 2: one of the original side-goals of stackoverflow was to create a site in ASP.NET that had great performance on max 2 servers and could handle > 1Mln visitors per hour. They managed to do that. I believe they wrote some blogposts on it, but I don't remember where they are.
This is a very good question. I have noticed the same once you get into the single-millisecond range of response times, ASP.NET overhead starts to be noticable. I can confirm your observation.
What I have done successfully is to find out, which HttpModules are registered (using IIS Manager) and disable all of them which I could possibly get rid of. The standard ASP.NET pipeline has a lot of modules and functionality configured.
If you need ultimate performance, you could of course use a tiny HTTP server library and get rid of almost all overhead that way. This would be so incredibly fast.
I'm profiling a asp(classic) web service. The web service makes database calls, reads/writes to files, and processes xml. On a windows server 2003 box(2.7ghz, 4 core, 4gb ram) how many requests per second should I be able to handle before things start to fail.
I'm building a tool to test this, but I'm looking for a number of requests per second to shoot for.
I know this is fairly vague, but please give the best estimate you can. If you need more information, please ask.
95% of the performance of any data-driven app is dependent on the database: 1) the way you do your calls, 2) the indexes, 3) the hardware under the database (disk subsystem in particular).
I have seen a machine, like you are describing, handle 40 requests per second (2500/minute), but numbers like 10 per second (600/minute) are more common. I would expect even lower if you are running your DB on the same machine, and even lower still if that DB is SQLExpress or MSAccess.
Also, at capacity, your app will probably not fail, but IIS will Queue requests, once it is saturated, and may timeout some of those requests if it can't service them before the timeout expires.
Btw, instead of building a tool to test your app, you may want to look into using a test tool such as Microsoft WCAT. It is pretty smooth and easy to use.
How fast should it be? Fast enough.
How fast is fast enough? That's a question that only you and your users can answer. If your service is horrifically inefficient and keeps up with demand, it's fast enough. If your service is assembly-optimized, lightning-fast, and overwhelmed with requests, it's not fast enough.
If the server is handling its actual workload, then don't worry about how fast it "should" be. When the server is having trouble, or when you anticipate that it soon will, then you should look at improving the code or upgrading the hardware. Remember Knuth's Law – premature optimization is the root of all evil. Any work you do now to make it faster may never pay off, and you may be forced to make compromises with flexivility or maintainability. Remember, too, an older adage – if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yes I would also say 10 per second is a good benchmark. For a high performance app you would want to get more than this, but if you have no specific goal you should generally be able to get at least 10 requests per sec for a general web page with a bunch of database queries.
I am studying various ASP.Net deployment approaches. In there, I got a basic question. Is there any thumb rule about enviornment definition? What could be called a 'good' setup if I have to support 1000 concurrent users(requests).
I understand that there are many factors like how application is designed etc. But assuming that everything else is great, what configuration should I look for like Which processor, how much RAM etc?
Also how many concurrent users below configuration should be able to support ?
CPU: Dual 3.40 GHz Intel Xeon (Hyper-Threaded)
Memory : 3GB
OS: Windows Server 2003 SP2
Thanks for thelp
Having been on both sides of the equation (web developer and hardware engineer), my current opinion is that the answer involves both of those sides as well.
Your hardware needs to be not only sufficient for general usage, but it also has to cope with reasonable unexpected peaks and failures - which means that it needs to be redundant, and in excess of your capacity planning.
Your software needs to be designed so its easily redundant - theres no point in speccing a tiered hardware architecture (now or for future planning) if the software is going to require significant amount of changes to handle it.
Your software also needs to be designed so sudden unexpected peaks in resource usage don't happen as a regular occurrence for no external reason (eg marketing campaign).
I know that you say you understand the non-hardware factors, but the real answer to your question is that there is no real way to answer it without knowing the other factors - each situation and circumstance is unique, and requires a unique solution.
However, in an effort to add generalised recommendations, try these:
CPU - choose something with a lot of cache, and individual cache per core as well. This will do wonders to speed up the system. I typically go for dual core, dual processor at a minimum (for a total of 4 cores on two seperate physical cpus). Processor speed ratings don't really matter as much as you think these days.
Memory - fast memory, minimum of 8GB of it. Use the smallest dimms possible for the server.
Harddisk - SAS 15K RPM at a minimum, RAID 6 for the data partition on one controller, RAID 1 or 6 for the system partition on another controller. Choose a good quality controller backed by a good support or warranty package - your controller is no good if it dies in 3 years time and you can't get a replacement.
But above all, don't just install the OS and app and let it be, profile the set up as much as possible, don't be afraid of making changes to optimise to the individual setup (within reason). Move your ASP.Net temporary files to a fast disk (or a ram disk - if they are going to be rebuilt anyway, no matter worrying over losing them). Move the database to a second server, with a crossover 1GBit link between the two. Turn off disk maintenance in the OS, turn off services you do not need.
Good luck!
I have a large ASP.NET website on a hosted platform. It shares the machine with a lot of other applications. We do not have access to the machine itself (only an FTP account).
Our client is complaining that it is starting to perform rather badly, particularly around peak hours. I've run some remote measurements (using a JMeter-like tool) that tells me that, yes, it does indeed perform rather badly during peak hours. It doesn't tell me why though. The client is resisting a move to a dedicated server without some hard facts.
As I see it, what I need are hard data about the machine itself. Setting up a local performance test environment would be extremely time-consuming, and I have no way to estimate the server performance.
My question: is there a good way to collect (a lot) of performance measurements when I have limited access to the machine, and certainly no access to the performance monitor? Any code would have to run in the asp.net application itself, without screwing it up too much.
We had a similar problem with our asp.net application hosted on a shared server, which also started to perform badly during peak hours.
Although I don't know of an elegant solution to your question, this is what we did:
Talk to your host providers to see what additional information they can give you - it's in their best interest to keep their clients happy. Our host providers were able to give us some time with one of their network engineers who provided us with some decent CPU and memory utilization stats.
Take your own performance measurements by dumping information to either a log file (using log4net) and/or the database - for example, user sessions, search times, page hits, timing measurements around key functionality. From this information we were able to ascertain what our systems normal behavior was for a set number of automation tests.
Setup a local server (not necessarily same stats as hosted/production server) with your application loaded and give it a full load/performance/capacity testing (we used Red Gate's ANTS Profiler). The stats that you gather from that will give you and your client a good indication of how the system should behave under certain loads with a known environment. Yes, this can be time consuming but it will give you a great performance measuring tool so that you can catch/fix bottlenecks locally rather than on production.
Good luck.