Ejabberd resource tests/try 5: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Ejabberd test results, attempt 5) |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
[[Image:try5-load_avg_5_min_per_conn-load_avg_5_max_per_conn-load_avg_5_median_per_conn.png]] |
[[Image:try5-load_avg_5_min_per_conn-load_avg_5_max_per_conn-load_avg_5_median_per_conn.png]] |
||
[[Image:load_avg_1-load_avg_5-load_avg_15.png]] |
[[Image:try5-load_avg_1-load_avg_5-load_avg_15.png]] |
||
Revision as of 03:01, 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.
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 perhaps slightly more than linear.
Memory use vs connections
This shows max-median-min values for stable points along the way.
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.