yaws mysql_质疑 apache和yaws的性能比较(必看)

最新推荐文章于 2024-10-16 16:00:00 发布

原创最新推荐文章于 2024-10-16 16:00:00 发布 · 155 阅读

0 ·

CC 4.0 BY-SA版权

文章标签：

#yaws mysql

本文通过具体的测试案例对比了Erlang和Apache的Web服务器性能，指出测试方法中存在的问题，并探讨了不同服务器处理请求时的行为差异。

但是你仔细看下他的测试方式

What do we measure and how?

We use a 16 node cluster running at SICS. We plot throughput vs. parallel load.

Machine 1 has a server (Apache or Yaws).

Machine 2 requests 20 KByte pages from machine 1. It does this in tight a loop requesting a new page as soon as it has received a page from the server. From this we derive a throughput figure, which is plotted in the horizontal scale on the graph. A typical value (800) means the throughput is 800 KBytes/sec.

Machines 3 to 16 generate load.

Each machine starts a large number of parallel sessions.

Each session makes a very slow request to fetch a one byte file from machine 1. This is done by sending very slow HTTP GET requests (we break up the GET requests and send them character at a time, with about ten seconds between each character)

这个比较是非常不公平的

apache的链接处理机制是开线程或者进程来处理请求按它的测试方法你非常慢速的8w请求导致apache开大量的线程来处理。而能开多少线程取决于操作系统的能力这还是其次大量的线程处理活跃的链接导致大量的thread content switch。 apache 挂了不奇怪。而erlang的线程相大于c语言的一个数据结构 erl_process你开多少取决于你的内存大量的但是慢速的链接刚好适合poll事件dispatch，以epoll的能力(俺测试过epoll30w)能够轻松处理。这个测试与其说测试web服务器的性能不如说测试服务器的进程生成能力。

俺的测试是这样的：.

./yaws --conf yaws.conf --erlarg "+K true +P 1024000" #epoll 最多1024000个进程内核都已经调优过

yaws.conf 的内容：

auth_log = false

max_num_cached_files = 8000

max_num_cached_bytes = 6000000

大家都用 ab -c 1000 -n 1000000 http://192.168.0.98:8000/bomb.gif 来测

果然发现yaws的性能也是非常一般大概也就是3K左右.

各位看下 strace 的结果就知道了：

accept(10, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(5644), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.0.97")}, [16]) = 11

fcntl64(11, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR)

fcntl64(11, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0

getsockopt(10, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(10, SOL_SOCKET, SO_KEEPALIVE, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(10, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(10, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], [4]) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], 4) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], 4) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], [4]) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], 4) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], [4]) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_KEEPALIVE, [0], 4) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], 4) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], 4) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], [4]) = 0

getsockopt(11, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], [4]) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [0], 4) = 0

setsockopt(11, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], 4) = 0

recv(11, "GET /bomb.gif HTTP/1.0\r\nUser-Age"..., 8192, 0) = 100

getpeername(11, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(5644), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.0.97")}, [16]) = 0

clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, {110242, 326908594}) = 0

stat64("/var/www/html/bomb.gif", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=4096, ...}) = 0

access("/var/www/html/bomb.gif", R_OK) = 0

access("/var/www/html/bomb.gif", W_OK) = 0

clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, {110242, 327135982}) = 0

time(NULL) = 1185894828

clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, {110242, 327222643}) = 0

stat64("/etc/localtime", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=405, ...}) = 0

writev(11, [{NULL, 0}, {"HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nConnection: clo"..., 231}, {"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"...

, 4096}], 3) = 4327

close(11

这里面充斥着大量的无用的昂贵的系统调用 (至少有20个*10us = 200us 的系统调用是无效的)

对文件的access 2 次连文件的cache都没有每次打开文件读文件然后写到socket去。

这个case是小文件(4k)的情况。看下大文件(40k)的情况

open("/var/www/html/bomb.gif", O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 19

read(19, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240) = 10240

writev(16, [{NULL, 0}, {"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240}], 2) = 10240

read(19, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240) = 10240

writev(16, [{NULL, 0}, {"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240}], 2) = 10240

read(19, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240) = 10240

writev(16, [{NULL, 0}, {"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240}], 2) = 10240

read(19, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240) = 10240

writev(16, [{NULL, 0}, {"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 10240}], 2) = 7240

read(19, "", 10240) = 0

close(19) = 0

clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, {110574, 856508319}) = 0

epoll_ctl(3, EPOLL_CTL_DEL, 11, {0, {u32=11, u64=581990243524149259}}) = 0

epoll_ctl(3, EPOLL_CTL_DEL, 12, {0, {u32=12, u64=581990243524149260}}) = 0

epoll_ctl(3, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, 16, {EPOLLOUT, {u32=16, u64=581990243524149264}}) = 0

epoll_wait(3, {}, 256, 0) = 0

clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, {110574, 856677411}) = 0

clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, {110574, 856729274}) = 0

大量的epoll_ctl 调用 clock_gettime的调用足够让系统的速度变的非常慢。

比对下lighttpd的性能。 lighttpd用到了cache，用到了aio，还是完全用c语言小心编写，他处理小文件大概是并发1w. 而yaws这个的处理方式打个3折我看差不多。

所以请各位大佬介绍erlang的性能时候不要再用这个apache vs yaws的例子了误导太多人了.