- Compare GW framework perf vs LB (need to identify if any perf impact from the LB related code). - Identify the reason for the apparent perf bottleneck with high concurrency.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kasun, > > Please find the latest results after Saturday's code review. > > > > > *Thanks,* > *Venkat.* > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Isuru, >> >> Good morning. Please find 11th week's progress. >> >> 1) Had code reviews and made few suggested corrections. >> 2) Did some groundwork for using JFR >> >> Will be continuing to work on performance tuning. >> >> @Kasun - Tomorrow is August 9th. Can we have demo ? >> >> >> >> *Thanks,* >> *Venkat.* >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Isuru, >>> >>> Here are the findings from today's review: >>> >>> 1) Change CallMediatorMap from ConcurrentHashMap to HashMap >>> 2) Remove unnecessary Synchronized block while checking >>> areAllEndpointsUnhealthy() >>> 3) Rename LoadBalancerCallMediator to LBEndpointsCallMediator >>> 4) Give a PR by adding getUri() method to gateway-framework >>> 5) Use JavaFlightRecorder while doing benchmark to identify bottlenecks >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Venkat.* >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Isuru, >>>> >>>> Please find the attached latest bench-mark without synchronization, >>>> callBackpool, healthcheck. >>>> >>>> Throughput is just 1000 times faster than my current implementation. >>>> >>>> It is drastically falling because of some other reason. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Thanks,* >>>> *Venkat.* >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi IsuruU, >>>>> >>>>> FYI >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> >>>>> Date: Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:39 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: GSoC Project: HTTP Load Balancer on Top of WSO2 Gateway >>>>> Discussion >>>>> To: Isuru Ranawaka <isu...@wso2.com>, Kasun Indrasiri <ka...@wso2.com> >>>>> Cc: DEV <dev@wso2.org>, Senduran Balasubramaniyam <sendu...@wso2.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Isuru & Kasun, >>>>> >>>>> Please find the attached result document (raw-engine-transport.xlsx). >>>>> I've done test with raw-engine-transport without any BE. It is performing >>>>> great and is close to Netty based BE !! >>>>> >>>>> Problem is with LB only. >>>>> >>>>> My guess is that CallbackPool (using concurrent HashMap) that we are >>>>> using to determine timeout is the bottle neck. I'll disable Callback pool >>>>> and do bench-mark and update you on that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Okay Isuru. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Isuru Ranawaka <isu...@wso2.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi venkat, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes we can. lets have a call today around 9.30 p.m >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Isuru, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good morning. Yesterday night, I spoke with Kasun regarding the >>>>>>>> latest update on bench-mark results. Even without any locking >>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>> is not good after concurrency of 5000. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you have done bench-mark till concurrency of 3000, we both would >>>>>>>> like to do bench-marking on raw carbon-transport upto concurrency of >>>>>>>> 10,000 >>>>>>>> and 1,00,000 requests so that we get an idea on this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How do we do that ? Will a simple response from engine suffice ? >>>>>>>> Can I use LB to send simple response directly without doing any >>>>>>>> mediation ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Isuru, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find the attached bench-mark results. As discussed, I've >>>>>>>>> disabled health-checking and removed synchronized block and used >>>>>>>>> atomic >>>>>>>>> Integer in one test and also did a test without any kind of lock or >>>>>>>>> use of >>>>>>>>> atomic integers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Throughput and latency results are positive. But, after >>>>>>>>> concurrency level of 5000 it is not that good. So even If we use >>>>>>>>> read-write lock or stamped lock, we will get performance little >>>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>>> gain only. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I feel that If we can do bench-mark with integration-server upto >>>>>>>>> 10000 concurrent connections we'll get a better idea. Is that okay ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>>>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Venkat Raman <vraman2...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Isuru & Kasun, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please find the findings from today's code review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) Locking in getNextLBOutboundEndpoint() method in algorithm >>>>>>>>>> implementation is causing over-head. We have to find a way to >>>>>>>>>> efficiently >>>>>>>>>> handle communication between threads to reduce locking overhead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Code repo freeze by August 15th for the sake of GSoC. If we >>>>>>>>>> can find a way to overcome locking over-head before August 15th that >>>>>>>>>> changes will be added to code repo. Otherwise it will be added >>>>>>>>>> after GSoC. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) TPS, Latency and Memory graphs to be added. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4) Blog post and PDF documentation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>>>>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Venkat Raman < >>>>>>>>>> vraman2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isuru, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good morning. Please find 10th week's progress. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) Had discussion with Kasun. >>>>>>>>>>> 2) As suggested, did performance bench-marking using Netty BE, >>>>>>>>>>> and it turns out that our LB is beating Nginx till concurrency >>>>>>>>>>> level of >>>>>>>>>>> 6000 after which it is not performing well. >>>>>>>>>>> I've attached the results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've started a new thread as Conversation arrangement is not >>>>>>>>>>> good in previous one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we can have a code review Isuru. Based on >>>>>>>>>>> your feedback I'll be abe to make changes and we can do >>>>>>>>>>> bench-marking >>>>>>>>>>> again. Can we do it today 9:30 PM ? We have only 2 full weeks >>>>>>>>>>> more. The >>>>>>>>>>> last week will be for documentation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Thanks,* >>>>>>>>>>> *Venkat.* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>> Isuru Ranawaka >>>>>>> M: +94714629880 >>>>>>> Blog : http://isurur.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Kasun Indrasiri Director, Integration Technologies WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com lean.enterprise.middleware cell: +1 650 450 2293 Blog : http://kasunpanorama.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@wso2.org http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
