Fwd: Siege benchmarks for Pierre
Pierre Sahores
sc at sahores-conseil.com
Thu Apr 7 18:38:52 EDT 2016
Good Evening Everyone,
Same tests done against Citalis, a real world web app next to come live online in its OpenLiteSpeed + Livecode CGI + MySQL version and on GITHUB for download in its two OpenResty's prefered versions (Livecode application’s server, LuaJIT + Redis, both powered by a PostgreSQL database).
TCP socket’s application's server magnitude : Asus X200CA, 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7 (Nginx, LuaJIT powering the Lua load balanced socket’s proxy, Livecode application’s and cache server, PostgreSQL 9.3
> root at pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q http://192.168.1.15/citalis.lls
> done.
>
> Transactions: 5000 hits
> Availability: 100.00 %
> Elapsed time: 7.28 secs
> Data transferred: 22.67 MB
> Response time: 0.14 secs
> Transaction rate: 686.81 trans/sec
> Throughput: 3.11 MB/sec
> Concurrency: 98.73
> Successful transactions: 5000
> Failed transactions: 0
> Longest transaction: 0.17
> Shortest transaction: 0.01
FastCGI magnitude : Asus X200CA, 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7 (Nginx, LuaJIT powering there the core application), Redis 2.8 (cache server), PostgreSQL 9.3
>
> root at pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q http://192.168.1.15/citalis.orc
> done.
>
> Transactions: 5000 hits
> Availability: 100.00 %
> Elapsed time: 21.43 secs
> Data transferred: 48.66 MB
> Response time: 0.42 secs
> Transaction rate: 233.32 trans/sec
> Throughput: 2.27 MB/sec
> Concurrency: 98.84
> Successful transactions: 5000
> Failed transactions: 0
> Longest transaction: 0.44
> Shortest transaction: 0.01
>
CGI magnitude : Asus X200CA, 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7 (Nginx, LuaJIT unused at all there), FCGIWrap, Livecode CGI server, PostgreSQL 9.3
>
> root at pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q http://192.168.1.15/citalis.lc
> ^ done.
>
> Transactions: 5000 hits
> Availability: 100.00 %
> Elapsed time: 738.69 secs
> Data transferred: 48.74 MB
> Response time: 14.64 secs
> Transaction rate: 6.77 trans/sec
> Throughput: 0.07 MB/sec
> Concurrency: 99.09
> Successful transactions: 5000
> Failed transactions: 0
> Longest transaction: 17.29
> Shortest transaction: 1.32
Story made short : in keeping LC CGI server as the unit reference of 1,
1.- the LuaJIT fastCGI platform is 34 X times faster;
2.- the Livecode AS platform is 100 X times faster.
Cheers,
Pierre
> Le 29 mars 2016 à 22:29, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> a écrit :
>
> Pierre Sahores wrote:
>
>>> Le 29 mars 2016 à 17:44, Richard Gaskin a écrit :
>>>
>>> Pierre Sahores wrote:
> ...
>> Interesting reads even if the 2d article's last test related to
>> micro-caching needs to be read with care...
>
> Understood. I offered them merely as inspiration for the scope of specialized services that can be delivered on super-affordable VPSes. Mine are costing only US$5 and US$6 per month, and both are well below capacity when running these stress tests.
>
> Of course each type of app will have its own unique requirements, but my crude early tests coupled with the results we see elsewhere reinforce your ongoing support for LiveCode as a very powerful addition to one's server-side toolkit.
>
>
>> If you read this, Mark, Kevin,… Well powered behind an Opentesty
>> front-end (Nginx/LuaJIT), Livecode application’s server (demon fork)
>> can do exactly all what Tarantool is able to do « et réciproquement
>> », no less, no more while, in the mean time, Tomcat, JBoss2,
>> Websphere, etc… just can’t, even in a very more costly price range
>> (millions), as i use to verify it recently in being hired for an
>> audit of one of the two SAP Hybris multi canal e-commerce suite /
>> associated soft/hardware infrastructure handling the online shop
>> services of the french « La Poste » postal service company...
>
> I would imagine interest is quite high in such things at the company.
>
> The nature of these types of deployments make it a longer-term payoff for them, as GPL works well for server work.
>
> But systems like these can put LiveCode into the hands of some very interesting companies, and used in conjunction with other smart tools like NginX and postreSQL can provide a unique advantage for rapid deployment of microservices.
>
>
>>> But my test setup was a bit weirder: lcHTTPd doesn't use Apache at
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> The only thing handling the transactions is that one humble
>>> single-threaded LC standalone process.
>>
>> Probably not the best way to go to setup a slave-mode reliable and
>> WAF well protected server-side solution. I would recommend, at least,
>> a basic Apache+LC CGI server configuration instead or, best, a
>> Nginx+FCGIWrap+LC CGI server. The solutions available permits to
>> deliver 50 pages/second on appropriate VPS or hosting services and
>> on the reliability side, WAF configuration included), such
>> configuration really helps to avoid big problems (unreachability,
>> data loss, piracy, etc…).
>
> Exactly. These early tests were merely to measure the effectiveness of LC's message-based network I/O. The advantage of any scripting language isn't up front -- too many great tools like NginX for that role.
>
> Where LC can shine is as a worker behind NginX. And there all results seen thus far suggest it can shine brightly.
>
>
>>> Once moved behind a reverse proxy such a tool could easily handle
>>> very high loads, using the LC engine we know and love today.
>>
>> For sure, clearly preferable : LC CGI is’t aimed to be an F-16 in
>> about speed BUT IT IS 100% RELIABLE AS LONG IT IS CLEANLY CONFIGURED
>> AND RUNS WELL CODED ROW OR, BEST, REVIGNITER POWERED SOLUTIONS.
>
> ...or far faster and more scalable, leave the bounds of CGI behind and use sockets with a standalone.
>
> It would take only minimal work to craft a glue lib for RevIgniter or Andre's revSpark to work with a standalone rather than the CGI-dependent LC Server.
>
>
>> note : see about MessagePack : http://msgpack.org/
>
> Good stuff.
>
> And in those cases where the client is also LiveCode we can use LSON (LiveCode encoded arrays) for superfast transport and decoding.
>
>
>
>>> Did you see Charles Warwick's post last June about a Docker
>>> container for LC Server?:
>>> http COLON SLASH SLASH
> lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2015-July/216882.html
>>
>> I did’t. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Will read it attentively.
>> On the other hand, i did, months ago, extensive tests in running a
>> good num of Docker VM and to the end, i went to the conclusion that
>> such configurations can’t compete against real-world configuration
>> because the Docker concept itself : well to slow to replace
>> production’s dedicated platforms.
>
> That may be a role where Juju could come in, but the more I think about this for needs as modest as my own the more I think there's an opportunity for something far simpler:
>
> Rather than Docker or Juju or something else that requires a managing process running on the server, a VPS is already "containerized" by virtue of the "V" in "VPS" - so why not use a simple bash script to download the various LiveCode elements, put them into place and set permissions, install any databases desired, config SSH and UFW to reflect how one wants to use the machine.
>
> Given some time I could write a GUI that can generate such bash scripts, but there's the rub: "given some time". :)
>
>
>> did you test an Ubuntu smartphone / tablet ? I’m really curious about
>> this and no far from abandoning Android after iOS for my personal
>> needs if it can work as smoothly on phone as it runs on our laptops
>> and server today ;D
>
> I've spent several minutes with an Ubuntu phone at the UbuCon Summit here in February. Very nice implementation, with some bold ideas about what an application is with their "scopes".
>
> Personally I'm quite immersed in the Android ecosystem, but as a developer my hope is the Linux/ARM LiveCode engine could be outfitted with glue for Qt using LC Builder and then we can add Ubuntu Touch to the mobile deployment platforms.
>
>
>
>>> PS - Note on funky URL formats: This is my fifth attempt to send
>>> this email to the list....
>>
>> PS : sent this one from mail (El Capitan) without tourbe. Seems to be
>> OK when i use Thunderbird from Ubuntu 14.04 too. Did you report this
>> to David ?
>
> Heather's recommendation is to send such requests to support AT for best routing, which I've done.
>
>
>> PS2: I’m a Debian and Ubuntu fan. Would never roll back anymore to
>> Suse (so fine before being sold to Netware) or RedHat/CentOS…
>
> Red Hat's been a very generous sponsor of our local Linux user group, and they've had so much success in recent years I certainly have no complaints. And I admire the design goals of Fedora, and others.
>
> But like you, I've been rather enamored of Ubuntu, both client and server. It's popular enough that it no longer feels particularly adventurous to use it - it's no more of a niche these days than choosing Mac or any other non-Windows system. But ah, the flexibility....
>
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
Pierre Sahores
mobile : 06 03 95 77 70
www.sahores-conseil.com
More information about the use-livecode
mailing list