|
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 12:50, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> Hello,
> > The count was from ab however I checked when doing the same tests and it
> > was 500 per real server.
>
> So it's a RS limitation. Maybe I didn't read your email carefully enough but
> what is the average time to fetch _one_ page and how _big_ is it in bytes?
> Also
> what is the load on the RS during the test?
> > and I was getting this from ipvsadm
> >
> > TCP 192.168.55.5:http rr
> > -> 192.168.55.1:http Route 1 500 14699
> > -> 192.168.55.3:http Route 1 500 15404
>
> Eek, your RS are ill. Sockets are not closed anymore there. I'm very much
> interested in the page you're trying to fetch now.
It is just a file called ab.html and all it has in it is the work test
> >>test ----> LVS ----> RS
> >>test --------------> RS
> >
> > Yea, that is what I have been doing, sorry for not explaining it
> > clearly.
>
> Thanks for confirmation; so this and the inactive counters from above to me
> indicate that your RS application does not close the sockets properly. We'll
> have to do some more testing then, once I get some more information about the
> page and its size.
>
> What is also funny is that you have a limit on exactly 500. Bugs or
> limitations
> normally don't tend to show up with such an even number ;).
Well I have seen it just over 500, but not many times.
> > How would I be able to check if this is the case and how would I be able
> > to solve it?
>
> You could run testlvs [1] but I can derive some numbers as soon as I know the
> page size and the RTT for one GET.
I tried using the attached perl script as well and I got the following
from the script :
maxed out at 2288: Operation now in progress
>From ipvsadm
IP Virtual Server version 1.0.7 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP 192.168.55.5:http rr
-> 192.168.55.3:http Route 1 1145 1
-> 192.168.55.1:http Route 1 1145 0
> > Well it was able to take more than apache and I tried setting that to
> > take the most connections it could. Do you have any better suggestions
> > on software I should be using client side, even another protocol.
>
> I know, we use thttp for static contents too sometimes because it can handle
> more connections than apache, but it should be able to get a lot more. I
> wonder
> if you set a connection limitation somewhere, something along the throttling
> part of thttpd. Also check your LINGER_TIME and LISTEN_BACKLOG settings.
They are not in the config file, I am using the standard debian woody
package, should I be compiling this app?
> > I know it should be able to handle more but it appears there is
> > something wrong with my tests.
>
> Or the app.
Agreed.
> > However I do get this from both of the app servers
> >
> > TCP: time wait bucket table overflow
>
> Too many connections in TW for FW2 state and too little memory too keep
> sockets.
> Very interesting!! From your 15k TW state entries and the 128Mb RAM
> assumption
> it would still not make too much sense because a socket doesn't need 8500
> bytes.
> I think after the next email I have some tunables for you :)
>
> We'll fiddle with some /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ entries.
Thanks again man.
Take care - RL
--
MSN:lazzurs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |"All that is etched in stone
Yahoo:admroblaz AIM:admroblaz |is truly only scribbled in
ICQ:66324927 |sand" - RL
Jabber:admroblaz@xxxxxxxxxx |Join Eff http://www.eff.org
e-mail:lazzurs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|Take care all - Rob Laz
max-connections.pl
Description: Text Data
|
