[reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now

jiangjinke at 163.com jiangjinke at 163.com
Sun Jul 31 21:14:16 CDT 2005 

Hi,
Sorry to provide my platform information.

Win2003 server
P4 3.0G
1G Memory

Optimized version of testStack.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jjk" <jiangjinke at 163.com>
To: <resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now


> When the testStack run on Windows, I got these result:
>
> INFO | 20050730-002834.984 | test | RESIP | 728 | testStack.cxx:233 | 
> Finished 10000 runs
> 10000 registrations peformed in 26359 ms, a rate of 379.377 transactions 
> per second.]
>
> Sam
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fischl jason" <jason.fischl at gmail.com>
> To: "Andy Agarwal" <Andy at ingenio.com>
> Cc: <resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org>
> 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 at 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 at 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 at ingenio.com> 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 at list.sipfoundry.org
>> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Andy
>> Agarwal
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:06 AM
>> To: Scott Godin; jason at iii.ca
>> Cc: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> 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 at icescape.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:59 AM
>> To: 'jason at iii.ca'; Scott Godin
>> Cc: Robert Sparks; Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> 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 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:56 PM
>> To: Scott Godin
>> Cc: Robert Sparks; Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
>>
>> Here's my output from testStack on Linux box.
>> [jason at 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 at icescape.com> 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 at nostrum.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:08 PM
>> > To: Scott Godin
>> > Cc: Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org; jason at iii.ca
>> > 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 at nostrum.com]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:09 PM
>> > > To: jason at iii.ca
>> > > Cc: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org; 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 at ingenio.com> 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 at icescape.com]
>> > >>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:17 AM
>> > >>> To: Andy Agarwal; jason at iii.ca
>> > >>> Cc: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>> 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 at ingenio.com]
>> > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:08 PM
>> > >>> To: jason at iii.ca
>> > >>> Cc: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>> 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 at gmail.com]
>> > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:57 AM
>> > >>> To: Andy Agarwal
>> > >>> Cc: jiangjinke at 163.com; resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>> 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 at ingenio.com> 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 at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>>> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf
>> > >>>> Of jiangjinke at 163.com
>> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:07 PM
>> > >>>> To: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>>> 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 at ingenio.com>
>> > >>>> To: <resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org>
>> > >>>> 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 at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>>>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> > >>>> resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> > >>>> resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >>>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> > >> resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > >> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> > > resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> > > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
>> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
>

More information about the resiprocate-devel mailing list