Re: [users@httpd] h2load http/2 benchmarkingresults using different mpm/php configurations

[Stefan Eissing]

Except in (mostly upstream) traffic (or downstream when having lots of cache 
validations succeed).

In this example: 
HTTP/1.1 upstream: 18.33MB
HTTP/2   upstream:  2.87MB (space savings 85.65%)

-Stefan


> Am 22.01.2018 um 15:14 schrieb Eric Covener :
> 
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Hajo Locke  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Am 22.01.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Eric Covener:
 
 but i never expected that my winner in this test is mod_php. also there
 was lowest
 loadavg.
>>> 
>>> I don't think the motivations to pull the PHP interpreter out of the
>>> webserver process is performance -- that's one of the costs.
>> 
>> yes. my statement was made in the context of http2 > mpm_prefork > mod_php >
>> "H2Worker 1"
>> basically mod_php is a fast technique and depending on purpose a good
>> solution.
> 
> I think with very little latency and no dependencies in one flow it
> will be hard to see h2 benefits.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] h2load http/2 benchmarkingresults using different mpm/php configurations

[Eric Covener]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Hajo Locke  wrote:
>
>
> Am 22.01.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Eric Covener:
>>>
>>> but i never expected that my winner in this test is mod_php. also there
>>> was lowest
>>> loadavg.
>>
>> I don't think the motivations to pull the PHP interpreter out of the
>> webserver process is performance -- that's one of the costs.
>
> yes. my statement was made in the context of http2 > mpm_prefork > mod_php >
> "H2Worker 1"
> basically mod_php is a fast technique and depending on purpose a good
> solution.

I think with very little latency and no dependencies in one flow it
will be hard to see h2 benefits.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] h2load http/2 benchmarkingresults using different mpm/php configurations

[Hajo Locke]

Am 22.01.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Eric Covener:

but i never expected that my winner in this test is mod_php. also there was 
lowest
loadavg.

I don't think the motivations to pull the PHP interpreter out of the
webserver process is performance -- that's one of the costs.
yes. my statement was made in the context of http2 > mpm_prefork > 
mod_php > "H2Worker 1"
basically mod_php is a fast technique and depending on purpose a good 
solution.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] h2load http/2 benchmarkingresults using different mpm/php configurations

[Eric Covener]

> but i never expected that my winner in this test is mod_php. also there was 
> lowest
> loadavg.

I don't think the motivations to pull the PHP interpreter out of the
webserver process is performance -- that's one of the costs.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Integrate Apache-2.4.25 with tomcat-8.5.23

[Daniel]

>From the looks of it, it seems the backend is trying to construct a
redirection taking into account the data you have informed it about
the proxy and port it serves, but you are not telling it about the
uri-path the proxy is using so it is not taking that into account.

Probably you need an additional ProxyPassReverse kind of like:

ProxyPassReverse / http://15.213.91.33:5643/

The directive parameters depend fully on what you get on the Location
header of the redirection, so adjust as needed

2018-01-19 18:47 GMT+01:00 Hemant Chaudhary :
> Hi,
>
> My apache is running on 15.213.91.33:5643 at location "/home/hemant/apache"
> and tomcat-8.5.x is running on 15.213.91.33:8009 at location
> /home/hemant/tomcat.
>
> To integrate apache with tomcat I used mod_proxy and mod_proxy_ajp.
> My httpd.conf looks like this :
> 
> ProxyPass "ajp://15.213.91.33:8009"
> ProxyPassReverse "ajp://15.213.91.33:8009"
> 
>
> My server.xml is configured like :
>  proxyPort="5643" />
>
> When I am accessing "15.213.91.33:5643/ajp" then index.html of tomcat
> appears, but If I click on any tab on page  then error 404 occurs because
> URL changes to "15.213.91.33:5643/doc" (If I click on doc tab on
> index.html). I think to work url should change to
> "15.213.91.33:5643/ajp/doc".
>
> Please let me know where my configuration is wrong ?
>
> Thanks
> Hemant
>



-- 
Daniel Ferradal
IT Specialist

email dferradal at gmail.com
linkedin es.linkedin.com/in/danielferradal

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] h2load http/2 benchmarkingresults using different mpm/php configurations

[Stefan Eissing]

Hi Hajo,

on my dev machine I get for static files using mpm_event on 
Ubuntu 16.04 Parallels image, current 2.4.x Apache with

> h2load  -n10 -c100 -m10 https://test.example.org:12346/XXX

with XXX being
 2005 bytes: finished in 1.96s, 51060.63 req/s, 100.20MB/s
10844 bytes: finished in 2.22s, 45013.66 req/s, 467.93MB/s
10MBytes:finished in 44.07s, 226.89 req/s, 2.11GB/s
(using -n1, since I was impatient)

So, you can see the difference with overheads and raw
transfer speeds. Now, this is a machine from summer last
year. If I run the same on a 5 year old quad core Intel,
I get roughly 25k-30k req/s for small files and max ~1.4 GB/s
on large file throughput.

Now, is that relevant? Are your tests more relevant?

That depends on how a site works?

If you assume a site with 1 php that drags in 10-30
images, css and fonts, that will be one thing. If
you server static resources somewhere else and serve
only php, it's another.

And there are lots of other factors that may become
important here. So, I personally find the difference
in your numbers between 2332 req/s and 2103 req/s not
that relevant for the advantage to serve more than
one request per process. But there might be a use
case where it is super relevant.

Also, if you want a client to benefit from HTTP/2, the
mpm_prefork with "H2Worker 1" setting will give a client
the same performance and timing as a single(!) HTTP/1.1
connection. 

Such a setup would cripple a modern browser. Sure, the
server numbers such a requests/sec look great, but the
page load times will not.

Makes sense?

Cheers,

Stefan




> Am 22.01.2018 um 13:06 schrieb Hajo Locke :
> 
> Hello List,
> 
> separatly from other mail with proxy_fcgi/enablereuse problem i want to tell 
> about my results. This is quite interesting.
> System is Ubuntu16.04, libnghttp2-14 1.7.1, Apache 2.4.29, php 7.0.25
> 
> All tests were startet with this params: h2load  -n10 -c100 -m10 
> https://example.com/infophp.php
> Tests used for this example were 100% successful:
> requests: 10 total, 10 started, 10 done, 10 succeeded, 0 
> failed, 0 errored, 0 timeout
> I run 10 Tests for every configuration, i just write here one significant 
> result as example.
> 
> First test is mod_php with mpm_prefork
> finished in 42.87s, 2332.39 req/s, 253.63MB/s load average: 47,69
> 
> 2nd test is php-fpm with classic mod_fastcgi configuration using 
> FastCGIExternalServer
> finished in 51.28s, 1950.25 req/s, 227.16MB/s load average: 60,70
> 
> 3rd test is php-fpm using fcgi_proxy configuration 
> (unixsocket/enablereuse=off) and mpm_event
> finished in 47.54s, 2103.41 req/s, 225.35MB/s load average: 61,50
> 
> I expected that fcgi_proxy/mpm_event is quicker then mod_fastcgi, but i never 
> expected that my winner in this test is mod_php. also there was lowest 
> loadavg.
> This is especially remarkable because i use unofficial patch to activate 
> http2 with mpm prefork along with "H2MaxWorkers 1" to avoid segfaults.
> Version 2.4.27 dropped support for http2 when using mpm_prefork through 
> performance-probs reported by users.
> http://httpd.markmail.org/search/?q=Apache%20HTTP%20Server%202.4.27%20Released#query:Apache%20HTTP%20Server%202.4.27%20Released+page:1+mid:nsnewcr74hg6527f+state:results
> 
> I wonder why my test showed this result. May be mass-requesting of phpinfo is 
> not comparable with a real production-server but altogether iam surprised.
> How to understand this result ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Hajo
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

[users@httpd] h2load http/2 benchmarkingresults using different mpm/php configurations

[Hajo Locke]

Hello List,

separatly from other mail with proxy_fcgi/enablereuse problem i want to 
tell about my results. This is quite interesting.

System is Ubuntu16.04, libnghttp2-14 1.7.1, Apache 2.4.29, php 7.0.25

All tests were startet with this params: h2load  -n10 -c100 -m10 
https://example.com/infophp.php

Tests used for this example were 100% successful:
requests: 10 total, 10 started, 10 done, 10 succeeded, 0 
failed, 0 errored, 0 timeout
I run 10 Tests for every configuration, i just write here one 
significant result as example.


First test is mod_php with mpm_prefork
finished in 42.87s, 2332.39 req/s, 253.63MB/s load average: 47,69

2nd test is php-fpm with classic mod_fastcgi configuration using 
FastCGIExternalServer

finished in 51.28s, 1950.25 req/s, 227.16MB/s load average: 60,70

3rd test is php-fpm using fcgi_proxy configuration 
(unixsocket/enablereuse=off) and mpm_event

finished in 47.54s, 2103.41 req/s, 225.35MB/s load average: 61,50

I expected that fcgi_proxy/mpm_event is quicker then mod_fastcgi, but i 
never expected that my winner in this test is mod_php. also there was 
lowest loadavg.
This is especially remarkable because i use unofficial patch to activate 
http2 with mpm prefork along with "H2MaxWorkers 1" to avoid segfaults.
Version 2.4.27 dropped support for http2 when using mpm_prefork through 
performance-probs reported by users.

http://httpd.markmail.org/search/?q=Apache%20HTTP%20Server%202.4.27%20Released#query:Apache%20HTTP%20Server%202.4.27%20Released+page:1+mid:nsnewcr74hg6527f+state:results

I wonder why my test showed this result. May be mass-requesting of 
phpinfo is not comparable with a real production-server but altogether 
iam surprised.

How to understand this result ?

Thanks,
Hajo

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] problems benchmarking php-fpm/proxy_fcgi with h2load

[Hajo Locke]

Hello,

Am 19.01.2018 um 15:48 schrieb Luca Toscano:

Hi Hajo,

2018-01-19 13:23 GMT+01:00 Hajo Locke >:


Hello,

thanks Daniel and Stefan. This is a good point.
I did the test with a static file and this test was successfully
done within only a few seconds.

finished in 20.06s, 4984.80 req/s, 1.27GB/s
requests: 10 total, 10 started, 10 done, 10
succeeded, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 timeout

so problem seems to be not h2load and basic apache. may be i
should look deeper into proxy_fcgi configuration.
php-fpm configuration is unchanged and was successfully used with
classical fastcgi-benchmark, so i think i have to doublecheck the
proxy.

now i did this change in proxy:

from
enablereuse=on
to
enablereuse=off

this change leads to a working h2load testrun:
finished in 51.74s, 1932.87 req/s, 216.05MB/s
requests: 10 total, 10 started, 10 done, 10
succeeded, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 timeout

iam surprised by that. i expected a higher performance when
reusing backend connections rather then creating new ones.
I did some further tests and changed some other php-fpm/proxy
values, but once "enablereuse=on" is set, the problem returns.

Should i just run the proxy with enablereuse=off? Or do you have
an other suspicion?



Before giving up I'd check two things:

1) That the same results happen with a regular localhost socket rather 
than a unix one.
I changed my setup to use tcp-sockets in php-fpm and proxy-fcgi. 
Currently i see the same behaviour.
2) What changes on the php-fpm side. Are there more busy workers when 
enablereuse is set to on? I am wondering how php-fpm handles FCGI 
requests happening on the same socket, as opposed to assuming that 1 
connection == 1 FCGI request.
If "enablereuse=off" is set i see a lot of running php-workerprocesses 
(120-130) and high load. Behaviour is like expected.
When set "enablereuse=on" i can see a big change. number of running 
php-workers is really low (~40). The test is running some time and then 
it stucks.
I can see that php-fpm processes are still active and waiting for 
connections, but proxy_fcgi is not using them nor it is establishing new 
connections. loadavg is low and benchmarktest is not able to finalize.
May be a kind of communicationproblem and checking health/busy status of 
php-processes.

Whole proxy configuration is  this:


    ProxySet enablereuse=off flushpackets=On timeout=3600 max=15000


   SetHandler "proxy:fcgi://php70fpm"




Luca


Alltogether i have collected interesting results. this should be 
remarkable for Stefan, because some results are not as expected. I will 
show this results in separate mail, to not mix up with this proxy problem.


Thanks,
Hajo

Re: [users@httpd] Problem with authorized user and SVN access

[Torsten Krah]

Am Freitag, den 19.01.2018, 20:54 + schrieb Stefan Hauffe:
> For me, especially Case 3 looks suspicious.

This looks to me like a topic for the svn guys at

us...@subversion.apache.org

kind regards

Torsten


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature