Thank you so much for the information Willy. unai
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:23:59AM +0800, Unai Rodriguez wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I am thinking of setting an HAProxy on Atom D510 Dual Core 1.66GHz. Am >> I supposed to face performance issues? Anyone got experience with >> HAProxy running on similar hardware? Would it be possible to share >> some approximate numbers on what that hardware would be able to >> handle? > > OK so here are a few results of haproxy 1.4.8 running on Atom D510 (64-bit) > without keep-alive : > > 6400 hits/s on 0-bytes objets > 6200 hits/s on 1kB objects (86 Mbps) > 5700 hits/s on 2kB objects (130 Mbps) > 5250 hits/s on 4kB objects (208 Mbps) > 3300 hits/s on 8kB objects (250 Mbps) > 2000 hits/s on 16kB objects (300 Mbps) > 1300 hits/s on 32kB objects (365 Mbps) > 800 hits/s on 64kB objects (450 Mbps) > 480 hits/s on 128kB objects (535 Mbps) > 250 hits/s on 256kB objects (575 Mbps) > 135 hits/s on 512kB objects (610 Mbps) > > > This requires binding the NIC's interrupt on one core and binding haproxy > to the other core. That way, it leaves about 20% total idle on the NIC's > core. Otherwise, the system tends to put haproxy on the same core as the > NIC and the results are approximately half of that. > > Quick tests with keep-alive enabled report 7400 hits/s instead of 6400 > for the empty file test, and 600 instead of 5250 for the 4kB file, thus > minor savings. > > In fact it makes a quite nice cheap fanless load balancer :-) > > Regards, > Willy > >
