Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:18:56 +0700
From:      Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>
To:        Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: 40Gbps http client benchmark
Message-ID:  <57A878B0.9040004@grosbein.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMOc5cyHsLZ93R9jQncBgReii0nCTnW0ZoBFbA4RkHpTcwHcnw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <57A62668.7020309@grosbein.net> <CAMOc5cyHsLZ93R9jQncBgReii0nCTnW0ZoBFbA4RkHpTcwHcnw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08.08.2016 08:57, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> We have an optimized wrk here:
> https://github.com/sepherosa/wrk

Thank you, I'll try it.

> It greatly reduces the # of kqueue syscalls and avoids unnecessary
> setsockopt etc.  BTW, how many concurrent connections and threads are
> you testing w/?  Did you reduce the MSL on your client machines?
> Default local port range probably should be ok, but it still worth
> checking.

I use default port ranges and get best results with command like this:

cpuset -l 0-7 wrk -t8 -c60 -d60s http://x.x.x.x/index

This way, I get 4.38GB out of 4x10G lagg (lagghash l4), that is about 36Gbps.

It seems, uneven lagg load balancing prevents it from reaching higher numbers.
I tried to increase connection number from -c60 to large values but then
unpatched wrk overhelms CPU with syscalls.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57A878B0.9040004>