From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 3 02:45:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C8A16A4CE; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 02:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1574543D46; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 02:45:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfmse.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.219.142] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1Any3W-0000IS-00; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:45:23 -0800 Message-ID: <401F7BEA.566F9342@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:46:02 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Igor Shmukler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a42b74c05c75a0af5847ee5f5f9327823c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Robert Watson Subject: Re: realistic web benchmark X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:45:30 -0000 "Igor Shmukler" wrote: > > In the past, I've used webstone for some web performance benchmarking. > > Recently, we've also been contacted with regard to a test suite named Web > > Polygraph. > > I probably was not 100% clear when I asked the question. Sorry. I am looking for > test that would tell me how will server perform in the field on WAN. > > Webstone is a bit naive about benchmarking. It allows comparison of server > scores, however the fact that a particular OS/server combination scores higher > does not guaranatee that it will have higher thoughput in real life situation. > > I scanned briefly through Web Polygraph's documentation and it seems like more > powerful tool, but I could not find how to emulate large delays and packet loss > common for WANs. That's what "dummynet" does for you: it lets you simulate lossy traffic, etc.; I presonally don't find it to be that meaningful, since the only thing that's actually going to see lossy traffic is the L4/L7 load balancer sitting in front of your server farm, so unless you are testing your load balancer, you really aren't going to get much information out of a lossy network test. Also, your most critical point of failure is going to be your really slow client connections taking up all your sockets and thus starving your faster client connections by being in the way. If you care about comparison points, webstone and Microsoft's WAST tool are going to be what people will be comparing you against when they run their own tests on an evaluation. http://www.mindcraft.com/webstone/ http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/intranet/downloads/webstres.asp The WAST application from Microsoft has the negative effect that it tends to fill up your server with packets in FIN-WAIT-2 state. This is because it doesn't do the full handshake on shutdown of connections, it just RST's them. The problem with this approach is that if you lose an RST packet, as opposed to a FIN, you aren't going to get a retransmit in 2 MSL. Julian Elisher did some patches for the TCP stack while at Whistle that address this issue the right way, by pretending to not have got the FIN that sent you from FIN-WAIT-1 to FIN-WAIT-2. This is also the same fix that Windows NT uses. If you don't make this fix, then you should expect that your server will "fill up" with idle connections when you are running WAST, and eventually stop serving pages. The primary value in Polygraph is stress-testing. It's mostly for proxy servers, and its main value lies in it setting up cache-busting scenarios by pre-loading a "hot" cache to force the limitation to be your proxy server, load balancer, or whatever. Mostly as a statement about the undesirability of such devices inre: the end-to-end nature of the net "as it's supposed to be". http://www.web-polygraph.org/ It's actually really amusing that Network Appliance "cheats" on the Polygraph benchmarks with their caching proxy appliance by doing random page replacement in order to defeat the Polygraph attempt to defeat the proxy cache by guessing it's size, and then making the workload such that there's 100% cache misses. That you could have such a pessimal algorithm, and that that was the best way to get a good score on the benchmark, to me, says a lot about the actual value of the benchmark as a benchmark. If you are just into stress testing, rather than running Polygraph, you'd likely be better off running http_load on a bunch of boxes: http://www.acme.com/software/http_load/ Or if you aren't adverse to a commercial box, you might want to consider the Web Avalanche products from Spirent, which they got in their acquisition of Caw Networks: http://www.caw.com/ It's basically a single box that's the equivalent of a lab worth of UNIX systems running a bunch of copies of http_load. It's very good at making web servers and proxies, etc., fall over dead if they have any issues at all. -- Terry