< Previous by Date	Date Index	Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread	Thread Index	Next in Thread >

Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now

From: "jjk" <jiangjinke@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:29:08 +0800

When the testStack run on Windows, I got these result:

Sam

----- Original Message -----From: "Fischl jason" <jason.fischl@xxxxxxxxx>

To: "Andy Agarwal" <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now


I added an option to testStack to be able to do INVITE/200/ACK/BYE/200
testing as an alternative. Just run with -i option to enable. Here are
my results:

[jason@halifax test]% bin.opt.Linux.i686/testStack  -l cout -v WARNING
-r 10000 -w 100 -b 127.0.0.1 -s 0 -i
Performing 10000 runs.
10000 calls peformed in 11859 ms, a rate of 843.241 calls per second.]

[jason@halifax test]% bin.opt.Linux.i686/testStack  -l cout -v WARNING
-r 10000 -w 100 -b 127.0.0.1 -s 0
Performing 10000 runs.
10000 registrations peformed in 3622 ms, a rate of 2760.91
transactions per second.]




On 7/28/05, Andy Agarwal <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The explanation below doesn't completely explain the difference in
numbers. If so, then you should get 1572 * 2 / 5 = 629 calls per second
if you run testSpeed on you laptop (with IPHLPAPI turned on). I doubt
you would get that high a figure since I am getting 395 calls per second
on a faster machine.

It would make sense that the remaining difference is due to the extra
time taken to construct these different messages - INVITE, ACK, BYE. I'm
guessing INVITE is the most time consuming among these three.

Anyway, sorry for generating some confusion by using the deprecated
testSpeed instead of testStack (although, I still feel there is value to
benchmarking reSIP using testSpeed)

andy



-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy
Agarwal
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:06 AM
To: Scott Godin; jason@xxxxxx
Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now


testStack is calculating the time taken to execute transactions
(Transaction = send REGISTER, receive 200) testSpeed is calculating the
time taken to execute calls (Call = send INVITE, receive 200, send ACK,
send BYE, receive 200)

Hence the big difference in numbers  :)



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:59 AM
To: 'jason@xxxxxx'; Scott Godin
Cc: Robert Sparks; Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now

On my Dell Latitude D810 laptop (PIV 1.73GHz) WinXP and using the same
settings as Jason, I can get 1572 transactions per second (using
IPHLPAPI) and 2084 transactions per second (with IPHLPAPI disabled).
These results are a least a little closer than the testSpeed results.
:)

Oddly enough my desktop machine PIV 2.6 Ghz Win2k3 only gets 1361
transactions per second.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Fischl jason [mailto:jason.fischl@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:56 PM
To: Scott Godin
Cc: Robert Sparks; Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now

Here's my output from testStack on Linux box.
[jason@halifax test]% bin.opt.Linux.i686/testStack -r 10000 -w 100 -l
cout -v ERR -b 127.0.0.1 Performing 10000 runs.
10000 registrations peformed in 3841 ms, a rate of 2603.49 transactions
per second.]

Note that this was compiled with -O3 on linux and uses the google
malloc. https://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-perftools/

Thanks,
Jason



On 7/27/05, Scott Godin <slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you use 127.0.0.1:<port> (the defaults in testSpeed.cxx that Andy
posted)
> it doesn't do any DNS lookups.  I can see how localhost would have
> caused problems though.
>
> I tried removing the IPHLPAPI library for determineSourceInterface
(ie.
> define NO_IPHLPAPI), so that windows uses the same mechanism as *nix
> for this.  I got an extra 100 calls per second - but still no where
> near the
> 2000+ calls per seconds Jason is seeing on Linux.  :(
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:08 PM
> To: Scott Godin
> Cc: Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jason@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
>
> TestStack gives a much more realistic measure of the stack performance

> _and_ it didn't make assumptions about DNS availability the way
> testSpeed did (people were getting horrid numbers because "localhost"
> wouldn't resolve for example...)
>
> RjS
>
> On Jul 27, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Scott Godin wrote:
>
> > I was using the testSpeed.cxx that Andy posted from testing.  I
> > can't remember why testSpeed was replaced by testStack - can you
> > refresh my memory?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:09 PM
> > To: jason@xxxxxx
> > Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andy Agarwal
> > Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> >
> > One bit of a sanity check -
> >
> > The discussion mentions testSpeed - we replaced that with testStack
> > quite awhile back.
> > testSpeed is not in the repository anymore. Was that a typo remember

> > things past?
> >
> > RjS
> >
> > On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:09 PM, Fischl jason wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Scott for fixing this.
> >>
> >> I am curious why we see much lower performance on win32 than on
Linux.
> >> On a 3GHz P4, I see > 2k calls per second under linux.
> >>
> >> Hmmm.
> >>
> >> Jason
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/25/05, Andy Agarwal <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Great. The problem seems to have been fixed. Now the testSpeed
> >>> program is generating 395 calls per second (even more than the
> >>> results obtained from reSIP 0.9).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for taking care of this...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:17 AM
> >>> To: Andy Agarwal; jason@xxxxxx
> >>> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> >>>
> >>> I did some investigation into this issue and found that a
> >>> relatively recent addition to the WinCompat code is causing the
> >>> slowness.  If you build with USE_IPV6, then WinCompat uses the
> >>> determineSourceInterfaceWithIPV6 function, as opposed to the
> >>> determineSourceInterfaceWithoutIPV6 function.  The
> >>> WithIPV6 version can end up taking 100-200ms to return - thus
> >>> slowing down the entire test.
> >>>
> >>> This function needs to be fixed - but in the meantime, I've
> >>> modified the code so that even if the USE_IPV6 flag is turned on,
> >>> if the IP Address is a
> >>> V4 address then it will use the "WithoutIPV6" version instead.
> >>> This means that the performance is restored for IPV4 addresses,
> >>> and only
> >>> IPV6
> >>> addresses will be slow.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Andy Agarwal [mailto:Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:08 PM
> >>> To: jason@xxxxxx
> >>> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I set the logging to "Error". Nothing was printed by the program
> >>> while the test ran.
> >>>
> >>>         Log::initialize(Log::Cout, Log::Err, argv[0]);
> >>>
> >>> I also built the stack and test program in Win32-Release mode. Did

> >>> not change the reSIP settings. I see that it is set to - Full
> >>> Optimization
> >>> (Ox) and Favor Fast Code (/Oy)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Fischl jason [mailto:jason.fischl@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:57 AM
> >>> To: Andy Agarwal
> >>> Cc: jiangjinke@xxxxxxx; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> >>>
> >>> Did you build with optimization turned on? Also, is any logging
> >>> enabled?
> >>> What type of logging (i.e. file-based)?
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/21/05, Andy Agarwal <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> Yes, I am running the stack on Win32. Should have mentioned that,
> >>> sorry.
> >>>> The machine I'm running it on is a 3GHz P4 with 1GB RAM running
> >>>> Windows
> >>>> 2003 server
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> >>>> Of jiangjinke@xxxxxxx
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:07 PM
> >>>> To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Andy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm using the rev. 5129 now, and the average (about 10 times)
> >>>> call rate is 340 cps.
> >>>> The platform I'm using:
> >>>> Redhat EL3,
> >>>> P4 CPU 2.40GHz,
> >>>> 1G Memory
> >>>>
> >>>> I've try the program on another win32 machine:
> >>>> 500 calls peformed in 13859 ms, a rate of 36.0776 calls per
> >>>> second.]
> >>>> CPU: P4 2.4G
> >>>> MEM: 512M
> >>>> The performance drops a lot under win32 It seems the problem only

> >>>> exists in the win32 related code.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Jinke Jiang
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Andy Agarwal" <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> To: <resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:23 AM
> >>>> Subject: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was using reSIP 0.9.5019 until yesterday. I switched to
> >>>> revision
> >>>> 5096 from the main branch because of a bug in 0.9 where the
> >>>> duplicate transaction ids were being created in my multi-threaded

> >>>> app (see -
> >>>>
http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/resiprocate-devel/msg02835.html).
> >>>>
> >>>> I was trying to see if there is a performance difference between
> >>>> 0.9 and rev. 5096 from the main branch and found a significant
change.
> >>>> In 0.9 the testSpeed program generates 359 calls per second.
> >>>> In rev. 5096 it generates 72 calls per second.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can anyone explain the reason behind this huge drop ? I have
> >>>> attached the testSpeed program for those interested.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks,
> >>>> andy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
> >>>> -
> >>>> -
> >>>> --
> >>>> --------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>>>> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>>> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>>> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel

_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
  - From: jiangjinke

References:
- RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
  - From: Andy Agarwal
- Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
  - From: Fischl jason

Prev by Date: Re: [reSIProcate] Documentation
Next by Date: [reSIProcate] difference between repository and public release?
Previous by thread: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
Next by thread: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread