So my article on benchmarking Glassfish got picked up by the Aquarium. Cool 🙂
Kenney and Sajith Blogs
Adobe AIR: Calculator
If you’ve installed the AIR SDK (and it’s dead easy, just extract and copy it somewhere), you’ve got a lightweight cross-plaform VM to program apps in. Best of all, it works with HTML and Javascript.
In about an hour, I hitched up a calculator application. It’s very easy:
Calculator.xml:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <application xmlns="http://ns.adobe.com/air/application/1.0.M4" appId="in.vish.Calculator" version="1.0"> <name>Calculator</name> <title>Calculator Installer</title> <description>Simple Calculator in HTML</description> <copyright></copyright> <rootContent systemChrome="standard" transparent="false" visible="true"> Calculator.html </rootContent> </application>
Calculator.html:
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>Calculator</title>
<style>
body, html { margin: 0; padding: 0; }
body { background-color: black; color: #888; line-height: 1.5em;
font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;
}
#wrap { margin: auto; width: 70%; }
h1 { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, serif; font-size:2em; color: orange; }
#sum_button { margin-top: 5px; }
</style>
<script>
init = function() {
runtime.trace("init function called");
}
calculate = function() {
runtime.trace("calculate called!");
value1 = document.getElementById('val1').value;
value2 = document.getElementById('val2').value;
sum_value = parseInt(value1) + parseInt(value2);
if (isNaN(sum_value)) {
document.getElementById('result').innerHTML = "You didn't enter valid numbers.";
} else {
document.getElementById('result').innerHTML = "The sum is " + sum_value + ".";
}
}
resetForm = function() {
runtime.trace("resetForm called!");
document.getElementById('sum').reset();
}
</script>
</head>
<body onload="init()">
<div id="wrap">
<h1>Calculate a Sum!</h1>
<form id="sum">
<label for="val1">Value 1:
<input type="text" name="val1" id="val1" size="4"/>
</label>
<label for="val2">Value 2:
<input type="text" name="val2" id="val2" size="4"/>
</label>
<input type="button" value="Sum!" id="sum_button" onclick="calculate();">
<input type="button" value="Reset" onclick="resetForm();">
<p id="result"></p>
</form>
</div>
</body>
</html>
And voila, there you have it: a simple calculator:
There’s also a zip file with the code: calculator.zip and the AIR file for installation (to use that you need the AIR runtime)
JRuby/Glassfish Investigation
I’ve been keeping an eye on the JRuby scene for a while now and I recently went about benchmarking again. JRuby is interesting because it has the potential to bring robust Java deployment and tools to the Ruby world.
I made a simple widgets application as outlined here and installed JRuby/Glassfish as outlined here (both great articles at AD TechFL) and then proceeded to benchmark:
Glassfish/Jruby on httperf:
Elena:~/Applications/jruby/lib vishnu$ time httperf --client=0/1 --server=localhost --port=8080 --uri=/jruby-demo/widgets/list --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=480 --rate=60 httperf --client=0/1 --server=localhost --port=8080 --uri=/jruby-demo/widgets/list --rate=60 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=480 --num-calls=1 httperf: warning: open file limit > FD_SETSIZE; limiting max. # of open files to FD_SETSIZE Maximum connect burst length: 2 Total: connections 480 requests 480 replies 480 test-duration 7.999 s Connection rate: 60.0 conn/s (16.7 ms/conn, <=7 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 1.4 avg 24.6 max 251.3 median 15.5 stddev 35.7 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.1 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 60.0 req/s (16.7 ms/req) Request size [B]: 83.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 60.0 avg 60.0 max 60.0 stddev 0.0 (1 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 24.5 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 360.0 content 1077.0 footer 0.0 (total 1437.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=438 3xx=0 4xx=0 5xx=42 CPU time [s]: user 1.42 system 5.79 (user 17.7% system 72.4% total 90.1%) Net I/O: 89.1 KB/s (0.7*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 real 0m8.008s user 0m1.418s sys 0m5.799s
Glassfish/Jruby on ab:
Elena:~/Applications/jruby/lib vishnu$ ab -n400 http://localhost:8080/jruby-demo/widgets/show/1
This is ApacheBench, Version 1.3d apache-1.3
Copyright (c) 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Copyright (c) 1998-2002 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/
Benchmarking localhost (be patient)
Completed 100 requests
Completed 200 requests
Completed 300 requests
Finished 400 requests
Server Software: Sun
Server Hostname: localhost
Server Port: 8080
Document Path: /jruby-demo/widgets/show/1
Document Length: 611 bytes
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 8.551 seconds
Complete requests: 400
Failed requests: 0
Broken pipe errors: 0
Total transferred: 397600 bytes
HTML transferred: 244400 bytes
Requests per second: 46.78 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 21.38 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 21.38 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 46.50 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connnection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 13 21 52.6 16 1019
Waiting: 13 21 52.6 16 1019
Total: 13 21 52.6 16 1019
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 16
66% 17
75% 17
80% 17
90% 18
95% 20
98% 37
99% 116
100% 1019 (last request)
Let’s compare. Here’s how a single Mongrel/C does with httperf:
Elena:~/Applications/jruby/lib vishnu$ time httperf --client=0/1 --server=localhost --port=3000 --uri=/widgets/list --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=480 --rate=30 httperf --client=0/1 --server=localhost --port=3000 --uri=/widgets/list --rate=30 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=480 --num-calls=1 httperf: warning: open file limit > FD_SETSIZE; limiting max. # of open files to FD_SETSIZE Maximum connect burst length: 3 Total: connections 480 requests 480 replies 480 test-duration 16.009 s Connection rate: 30.0 conn/s (33.4 ms/conn, <=18 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 9.0 avg 56.4 max 607.6 median 9.5 stddev 99.4 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.2 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 30.0 req/s (33.4 ms/req) Request size [B]: 72.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 29.4 avg 29.8 max 30.0 stddev 0.3 (3 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 55.7 transfer 0.5 Reply size [B]: header 278.0 content 1011.0 footer 0.0 (total 1289.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=480 3xx=0 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 3.91 system 11.35 (user 24.4% system 70.9% total 95.3%) Net I/O: 39.9 KB/s (0.3*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 real 0m16.017s user 0m3.912s sys 0m11.354s
And Mongrel/C with ab:
Elena:~/Applications/jruby/lib vishnu$ ab -n400 http://localhost:3000/widgets/list
This is ApacheBench, Version 1.3d apache-1.3
Copyright (c) 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Copyright (c) 1998-2002 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/
Benchmarking localhost (be patient)
Completed 100 requests
Completed 200 requests
Completed 300 requests
Finished 400 requests
Server Software: Mongrel
Server Hostname: localhost
Server Port: 3000
Document Path: /widgets/list
Document Length: 1011 bytes
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 7.974 seconds
Complete requests: 400
Failed requests: 0
Broken pipe errors: 0
Total transferred: 515600 bytes
HTML transferred: 404400 bytes
Requests per second: 50.16 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 19.93 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 19.93 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 64.66 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connnection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 9 19 63.4 11 1167
Waiting: 9 19 63.4 11 1167
Total: 9 19 63.4 11 1167
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 11
66% 12
75% 12
80% 12
90% 13
95% 15
98% 113
99% 149
100% 1167 (last request)
Observations
- Advantage: For the same number of connections, Glassfish/Jruby versus a single instance Mongrel/C has twice the reply rate in half the benchmark time.
- Disadvantage: Request latency is more for Glassfish/Jruby. (around 5ms av. more)
- Disadvantage: JRuby Ruby/Rails support is not perfect but very good.
- Advantage: Much simpler to set up. Copy the war file to the server and deployment is done, autodeployment is also possible w/o restarting Glassfish.
- Advantage: Much simpler to install and get going on the server, just requires a JDK, glassfish installed anywhere, etc.
- Advantage: Runs on Java, so Java deployment experience will do.
- Disadvantage: Does not support C library extensions for Ruby, question: how many of them are there & useful (memcached?) ?
- Advantage: Supports Java libraries kind of easily, again question: how many of them are there, useful and relevant?
- Question: This benchmark is versus a single mongrel, how does cluster vs. cluster compare?
- Question: Is glassfish clustering easy? Observation: mongrel clustering is cumbersome at present. Maybe swiftiply will help there with dynamic addition of mongrels?
New picture
So the old mustache was getting to be a bit long in the tooth, so I have a new stainglass one. To go with it, a tightened sidebar too. What do you guys think?
