[reSIProcate] The Million User Dilemma

Kennard White kennard_white at logitech.com
Sat Jan 29 12:57:57 CST 2011 

Hi Byron,

Scott and I earlier discussed possible directions to take, and he found
this:
http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/01/libevent-20x-like-libevent-14x-only.htmlwhich
is a good overview of pre-notification (select/poll/epoll, which tell
app when IO is possible) approaches vs buffered or post-notification
approaches (where you queue up IO into the kernel, and it tells app when
when IO is complete). Asio is a post-notification system, and as far as I
can tell doesn't offer a pre-notification API. In contrast, libevent offers
both pre-notification and post-notification. The gotcha here is that in
Windows the only way to effectively handle many connections is with
post-notification (so I understand). Windows has pre-notification APIs, but
they don't scale (I'm told).

With respect to the current resip codebase, any pre-notification library
could be plugged into resip in place of my "native" epoll, and (hopefully)
everything is properly virtualized to allowed this. Need to do something
here, because there is significant branching within current codebase to
handle epoll vs "older" buildFd/process paradigm. Support both modes won't
be fun.

The alternative is to make a "big" leap to a post-notify system. The problem
is that this is much more intrusive into the application, because the
underlying framework has its own buffer management system (think mbufs), and
every framework manages buffers differently. This is in contrast to
pre-notification, where the app tells the kernel "put the data here", and
the app provides its own buffer management (which resip does, esp for TCP).
While I haven't started a prototype so I don't know for sure, my guess is
that is a given transport class with resip would be "hardcoded" to work with
a particular framework -- it cannot be hidden. Given that, asio is a natural
choice, since (hopefully) it works everywhere we want.

Anyways, I'm undecided among 3 options:

   - Write a FdPollGrp impl class that uses Window's select call, so that
   there a working FdPollGrp class on every platform, and can obsolete
   buildFd/process. Unfortunately, I don't develop for Windows, and Window's
   select() is somewhere in between Linux's select() and poll(), so really
   someone else needs to do this.
   - Write libevent2 adapter for FdPollGrp that uses the pre-notification
   mode and then obsolete buildFd/process. Then libevent2 becomes required
   dependency for Windows (and any platform without working epoll()).
   - Switch everything to asio. This is big project, requires turning the
   transport code inside-out, and would break compatibility with any "private"
   transports.

Regarding, asio::strand, as far as I can tell it is "just" a per-handler
mutex. I don't see how multi-threading of the transports helps anything. All
the heavy work is in the transaction layer, and there is a queue interface
between the transports and transaction layer. I think putting transports in
separate threads has been tried before ("ExternalTransports") and my
understand is that it didn't pay. One can see the same thing by running
testStack in the different threading modes I added, and the multithreaded
ones all perform worse.

Kennard





On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Byron Campen <bcampen at estacado.net> wrote:

>        tfdum is actually doing the boost::bind trick here, but no asio
> Strand (the bindings are to the various blahCommand() functions). I just
> wish the compiler spew wasn't so bad when you got a parameter not quite
> right, but that's gcc templates for you. An app-writer can easily use
> boost::bind in their app, which does not require any boost dependency in
> resip or DUM, so that is at least nice. I'm not familiar enough with asio
> Strand to say how much work it would be to make resip's threading use it;
> I'm guessing this is a wrapper for pthreads/whatever Windows uses/the fancy
> Intel threading stuff?
>
>        As for using asio to just drive the event loops, Scott, roughly how
> much work would need to be done here? And how many platforms would this
> benefit? I know the epoll stuff works on OS X; how would Windows benefit
> from using asio? I'm thrilled with epoll, but that's just me.
>
> Best regards,
> Byron Campen
>
>
> > Hi Kennard,
> >
> > I think you're on the right track with using epoll, but I'd like to go
> > one step further and improve cross platform compatibility in the
> > process.  Scott Godin has been keeping header only asio up to date in
> > the resiprocate tree, and it provides support for every platforms most
> > sophisticated version of select/epoll/kqueue etc.  Reimplementing things
> > like FdSet and and the wait and process functions with async_wait that
> > asio provides could provide a humongous performance improvement as well
> > as Asio can be multithreaded easily.
> >
> > Also consider things like DumCommand.  It can be easily replaced with
> > Asio's Strand + boost::bind/boost::function or C++0x lambdas which are
> > much more flexible and require significantly less code.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On 01/26/2011 01:45 PM, Kennard White wrote:
> >> Hi Dan,
> >>
> >> I found your post very interesting, since we have very similar goals.
> >> The changes I've made recently to resip to add epoll support is to
> >> address the first limitation: simply being able to have many connections
> >> open.
> >>
> >> I've spent some amount of time profiling resip, and unfortunately I
> >> haven't found one single hot-spot. Probably SipMessage allocation and
> >> destruction is most expensive, but I haven't looked into it in any
> >> detail. For reference, I'm getting about 2ktps on good hardware in
> >> "real" usage scenarios. Probably first thing to do is look for
> >> unnecessary message copies.
> >>
> >> For the SIP-aspect of NAT traversal, we are switch to TCP/TLS (away from
> >> UDP) using RFC 5626 outbound support.
> >>
> >> Would like to hear your plans.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Kennard
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Dan Weber <dan at marketsoup.com
> >> <mailto:dan at marketsoup.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>    Hi guys,
> >>
> >>    I must say I have a quite ambitious goal.  I want to make it so that
> I
> >>    can build a network of repros that can support millions upon millions
> of
> >>    users.  Likewise, I like to consider myself as a standards based guy,
> >>    and I want to take as much of everyone's input as possible in the
> design
> >>    path to doing this.  In return, everything will be made available for
> >>    free under the same Vovida license and/or BSD licensing that is
> already
> >>    available.
> >>
> >>
> >>    Several key areas of concern are the following:
> >>
> >>    Reliability:
> >>    How do we make it so that we can have many repro nodes work together
> >>    across large geographic topology, and allow calls to continue
> processing
> >>    in the event of an attack or a failure?
> >>
> >>    Scalability:
> >>    If you've ever run the testStack application and you're running a
> modern
> >>    computer, you'll notice that it doesn't matter how many cores you
> have,
> >>    or even to the point of the clock rate of your processor, there seems
> to
> >>    be a magic threshold around 6500 TPS for non invite scenarios.
> >>    Likewise, for calls, I can get about 1/3rd of that.  Also, those are
> >>    tests done with TCP, when you add in UDP, you can watch it suck up
> >>    memory like its job.  Based on what Byron has shown me, on inferior
> >>    hardware, the stack that Estacado/Tekelec has built and modified from
> >>    the main resiprocate tree can perform over 12000 TPS for noninvite
> >>    transactions in a single thread.  This means there are even great
> areas
> >>    for improvement beyond just adding concurrency.
> >>
> >>    Security:
> >>    Resiprocate supports TLS fairly well.  I would like to be able to
> take
> >>    advantage of that with any reliability mechanism put forth to help
> meet
> >>    HIPAA style requirements that require that all data stored to disk be
> >>    encrypted, and all data in transit be in encrypted.  Thankfully, part
> of
> >>    this problem can be more easily resolved by keeping more state in
> >>    memory.
> >>
> >>    NAT Traversal:
> >>    Jeremy Geras and Scott Godin among others have worked very hard to
> >>    provide NAT traversal mechanisms for calls and registrations and so
> >>    forth through reTurn, reflow, and recon.  Jeremy's branch of recon
> >>    utilizes an outdated stack, but supports ICE to a large degree.  It
> is
> >>    missing support for ICE with TURN and has some other quirks that I've
> >>    managed to work out.
> >>
> >>    In my research around these key areas, I have come up with several
> ideas
> >>    of my own to deal with these issues, however, I would like to open
> this
> >>    up to the community to discuss these areas in an open forum where
> >>    everyone can participate and have their input taken seriously.
> >>
> >>    Thanks guys,
> >>    Dan
> >>
> >>    _______________________________________________
> >>    resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>    resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> >>    <mailto:resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org>
> >>    https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> > https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20110129/ba565cdb/attachment.htm>

More information about the resiprocate-devel mailing list