On 7/28/20 13:52, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > I've just posted an article [1] about comparing the performance of Varnish > Cache on two similar > machines - the main difference is the CPU architecture - x86_64 vs aarch64. > It uses a specific use case - the backend service just returns a static > content. The idea is > to compare Varnish on the different architectures but also to compare > Varnish against the backend HTTP server. > What is interesting is that Varnish gives the same throughput as the > backend server on x86_64 but on aarch64 it is around 30% slower than the > backend.
Does your test have an account of whether there were any errors in backend fetches? Don't know if that explains anything, but with a connect timeout of 10s and first byte timeout of 5m, any error would have a considerable effect on the results of a 30 second test. The test tool output doesn't say anything I can see about error rates -- whether all responses had status 200, and if not, how many had which other status. Ideally it should be all 200, otherwise the results may not be valid. I agree with phk that a statistical analysis is needed for a robust statement about differences between the two platforms. For that, you'd need more than the summary stats shown in your blog post -- you need to collect all of the response times. What I usually do is query Varnish client request logs for Timestamp:Resp and save the number in the last column. t.test() in R runs Student's t-test (me R fanboi). HTH, Geoff -- ** * * UPLEX - Nils Goroll Systemoptimierung Scheffelstraße 32 22301 Hamburg Tel +49 40 2880 5731 Mob +49 176 636 90917 Fax +49 40 42949753 http://uplex.de
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev