which passenger settings did you use for the testing? Ohad
On 5/12/09, Nigel Kersten <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ohad Levy <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've been trying to reproduce your results, and got mixed results myself. >> >> I did a similar test with puppet-test (ignoring for a second that a major >> memory abuser is the file copying) i did simple compile tests. >> >> the setup include 3 main scenarios: >> >> latest passenger + ree >> passenger with RHEL5 ruby >> simple mongrel setup with RHEL5. >> >> for fun, I also added a yaml/marshal comparison. >> >> my test client was always the same with this arguments: >> /puppet-test --server serverX --fork 5 --catalog_format marshal/yaml >> --repeat 10 >> >> according to my calculation 60 (1+5 fork x 10) clients is at least 60 >> clients per minute ==> 1800 clients per puppetmaster. >> >> >> my output is: >> passenger + ree + marshal: >> AVG: 42.4674576271186, OK: 59 failed: 1 >> passenger + ree + yaml: >> AVG: 46.9481666666667, OK: 60 failed: 0 >> >> passenger + RHE5 ruby / marshal: >> AVG: 50.6046666666667, OK: 60 failed: 0 >> passenger + RHE5 ruby / yaml: >> AVG: 52.1456666666667, OK: 60 failed: 0 >> >> mongrel (4 processes) + with RHE5 ruby / marshal: >> AVG: 48.5047272727273, OK: 55 failed: 5 >> mongrel (4 processes) + with RHE5 ruby / yaml: >> AVG: 38.0254347826087, OK: 46 failed: 14 >> >> >> as it goes for memory consumptions, no surprises here, passenger processes >> retain within 100mb per process, mongrel went to an average of 220mb, >> however, passenger used 6 processes, and mongrel only 4.. so maybe I could >> run 6 mongrels and compare further. >> >> I did not see a huge different in memory consumption between REE and >> normal >> RHE5 ruby when using passenger. >> >> *in my setup, failed are clients who didnt get a catalog within 120 >> seconds. >> >> Nigel, I'm surpized how you got such a different values for compile time, >> could it be that you server was swapping? > > No. 8GB of RAM, plus I was actually stopping all services, starting > again, doing a single run to cache client information, then starting > the benchmark. > > I'm doing fork 50, repeat 10. > > From prior benchmarking that showed Passenger far far ahead of Mongrel > for concurrent client runs, I haven't even bothered testing that, but > I could. I'll do a run with the same environments today, and repeat > this a few more times. > > Perhaps the difference is more Ruby 1.8.4 and 1.8.6 than the EE > patches? I'll post the versions of everything else later, but this was > with Passenger 2.1.1 and puppet 0.24.8 > > I haven't actually been able to get 2.1.2 working on Dapper, so I > can't reproduce the same environment. > >> >> another side effect that I found in more than one occasion that if I >> killed >> the puppet-test, the passenger processes went on for a long time ( I >> killed >> them manually after 15 minutes) and passenger-status reported that there >> are >> no active processes but cpu usage was 100%..... >> >> so bottom line so far, even if you have a balanced mongrel / cpu /client >> ratio, performance-wise there is a slight difference towards ree (in my >> tests), passenger is handling memory usage better than mongrels, but maybe >> have some hiccups and handles high load much better than mongrels... >> >> Ohad >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Nigel Kersten <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> This was: >>> >>> ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [x86_64-linux] >>> vs >>> ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [x86_64-linux] >>> Ruby Enterprise Edition 20090421 >>> >>> on Ubuntu Dapper, using Passenger with Apache. >>> >>> I used the puppet-test script in the ext/ directory to simulate 50 >>> simultaneous runs with a repeat of 10. Both runs ran from the same >>> clean state. >>> >>> I measured peak memory usage and total catalog compilation time (ie >>> adding up the "compiled catalog in xxx.x seconds" output) with our >>> actual Puppet configuration. >>> >>> >>> Ruby 1.8.4: >>> peak memory consumption: 2686 MB >>> total catalog compilation time: 26632 seconds >>> >>> >>> Ruby EE 20090421: >>> peak memory consumption: 1462 MB >>> total catalog compilation time: 13693.5 seconds >>> >>> >>> wow. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nigel Kersten >>> [email protected] >>> System Administrator >>> Google, Inc. >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > -- > Nigel Kersten > [email protected] > System Administrator > Google, Inc. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
