Ejabberd resource tests/try 5: Difference between revisions
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
It turns out that in the hyperactivity agents were not interacting in |
It turns out that in the hyperactivity agents were not interacting in |
||
[[Ejabberd resource tests/try 4]]. |
[[Ejabberd resource tests/try 4]], due to the shared roster being off by mistake. |
||
For this test several hyperactivity instances were used, each running 50 clients. 4 XO laptops were also connected, so the total number of clients was at most stages 50n + 4. |
For this test several hyperactivity instances were used, each running 50 clients. 4 XO laptops were also connected, so the total number of clients was at most stages 50n + 4. |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=== Memory use vs connections === |
=== Memory use vs connections === |
||
This shows max-median-min values for stable points along the way |
This shows max-median-min values for stable points along the way (3 minutes with the same number of connections). |
||
[[Image:try5-resident_mem_min_per_conn-resident_mem_max_per_conn-resident_mem_median_per_conn.png]] |
[[Image:try5-resident_mem_min_per_conn-resident_mem_max_per_conn-resident_mem_median_per_conn.png]] |
||
Here's the raw data (duplicates exist because a number of connections can vary slightly as clients disconnect and reconnect). |
|||
resident_mem |
|||
clients minimum median maximum |
|||
54 96 97 98 |
|||
104 134 139 143 |
|||
154 164 167 174 |
|||
204 220 224 253 |
|||
204 229 232 236 |
|||
254 270 278 289 |
|||
304 345 399 421 |
|||
254 329 348 386 |
|||
304 337 352 419 |
|||
354 455 471 515 |
|||
403 499 577 654 |
|||
404 502 504 514 |
|||
454 635 644 696 |
|||
453 642 644 646 |
|||
454 608 613 664 |
|||
=== CPU usage === |
=== CPU usage === |
||
Latest revision as of 03:22, 4 November 2008
Try 5: a few hundred users, interacting properly
It turns out that in the hyperactivity agents were not interacting in Ejabberd resource tests/try 4, due to the shared roster being off by mistake.
For this test several hyperactivity instances were used, each running 50 clients. 4 XO laptops were also connected, so the total number of clients was at most stages 50n + 4.
Memory use
Here you can see the memory use is slightly over 1 MB per user, and growth is approximately linear or slightly in excess thereof. The server has 1GB of ram.
Memory use vs connections
This shows max-median-min values for stable points along the way (3 minutes with the same number of connections).
Here's the raw data (duplicates exist because a number of connections can vary slightly as clients disconnect and reconnect).
resident_mem clients minimum median maximum 54 96 97 98 104 134 139 143 154 164 167 174 204 220 224 253 204 229 232 236 254 270 278 289 304 345 399 421 254 329 348 386 304 337 352 419 354 455 471 515 403 499 577 654 404 502 504 514 454 635 644 696 453 642 644 646 454 608 613 664
CPU usage
Cumulative CPU use by the ejabberd process:
Load averages, by connections and by time:
The laptops
Note that they all see a different number of clients.
