The states output is from only one perlbal instance, so the real numbers are basically double that. Here is my basic config:<br><br>CREATE SERVICE feeds<br> SET role = reverse_proxy<br> SET pool = feedspool
<br> SET persist_client = on<br> SET persist_backend = on<br> SET verify_backend = on<br> SET connect_ahead = 50<br> SET enable_error_retries = on<br> SET backend_persist_cache = 20<br> SET balance_method = random
<br>ENABLE feeds<br><br>I have my backends configured to handle 275 threads each (which if they actually did serve that many at once would explode) because I haven't really optimized that number for "the perlbal way". Perlbal has yet to actually connect that many to a backend by a long shot. Does it make sense for me to go with a large connect_ahead and/or backend_persist_cache? I'm still a bit unclear on what specifically each does? Or should I stick with the numbers I have? Should they be the same number? I figured that setting it high would just waste more cpu cycles if Perlbal is constantly iterating through a bunch of bored connections deciding whether to keep them connected or not.
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 30, 2007 12:48 PM, Mark Smith <<a href="mailto:smitty@gmail.com">smitty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">So I'm giving Perlbal a taste of some production traffic, and I've basically topped out at 40Mbit/s and 700req/s. [...]
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>Is this the performance level I should expect? Or am I doing something wrong?<br><span></span></div></blockquote></div><br>You have less clients in persist_wait than I'd expect, but the rest of it looks normal. Running two on one box like that is fine IIRC Hyper-Threading is fine for this sort of application (two heavy CPU processes, but the same ones, so they have shared memory?). Would be interesting to just try it with one process and see if you get significantly more requests through.
<br><br>Anyway, I seem to recall on LiveJournal we were running ~500 requests/second through similarly configured setups before deciding to get more machines so as not to max out the CPUs. Alan or somebody else might be able to provide more up to date numbers, but this doesn't sound too wrong. :)
<br><br>If you're concerned about the speed, it'd be worth analyzing the type of traffic you're sending at it, as well as the configuration you're running. Maximize persistent connections, especially to backend servers, etc. Would have to know more about your traffic/config to give more advice here though.
<br><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark Smith / xb95<br><a href="mailto:smitty@gmail.com" target="_blank">smitty@gmail.com</a>
</font></blockquote></div><br>