On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 03:29 +0000, Agustinus Mulyawan wrote:
> Yes, the site have many concurent user.
> Even more then 1000 concurent user, the bandwith usage for web up to 4 Mbps
> (mainly text display)
> I just want to test it before implement the pound for load balance.
> The backend work fine, when heavily load with many user, pound not respond.
There is no way to get 1000 concurrent requests over a 4Mbps link.
Thanks I notice it now, after test with other stress tool...
That I mention from previous mail.
Web stress tool of Microsoft --> Traffic with 1000 user so small, for each server 300kbps. (900kbps)
New stress tool --> 520 User traffic 500kbps (total around 1.5 Mbps)
- assume full-duplex link.
- assume (optimistically) that 4Mbps translates into 400KBytes/second
- assume (optimistically) that a single response amounts to 2K
Result: max. 200 requests/second to fully saturate your link.
I strongly suggest you do your homework before you try to set up a
production server, and never confuse the number of concurrent (aka
on-line) users with the number of concurrent requests.
Thanks, I'm doing the homework already. And thanks for the explanation of urs, from the reading from microsoft web stress tool confusing enough
max total 900 Kbps for 1000 user, the concurent connection around 36 concurent request, for each around 10 request
I found out from the new stress tool with 520 user, around 60 concurent request for each around 20 request for each server before it crash.
The backend with VMWare can not support 520 user, absolutely no way it can manage 1000 user that I test earlier.
The production server never been tested before, I'm just test it for efficiency in the future.
Of course I need learn more about the production server, I'm new with this sort of things.
> After send the mail, I try to recompile pound with the new configuration of
> And I test with 1000 for the "stress level (threads)", and 1 for the
> "stress multiplier (sockets per threads)"
> I open the test site, and the pound still manage to handle the request.
> I will do some more testing, and check the error log in the pound.
> But I have something in my mind, Is the effect of reconfigure the ulimit,
> may result after recompile the pound?
ulimit has nothing to do with compilation. Setting a new ulimit affects
all processes you run from now on from the same shell. Please read the
man page for more details.
That's why I ask u about that to make sure, the microsoft stress tool that I install in other pc somehow got error.
The result of the stress test no good.
First it got error, later on the result doesn't give any error message.
Later on I try to find other stress tool, and install it in other pc.
I'm no expert with linux, I learn more with this. Thanks again.
> And about this, "You'd need to recompile the library to go beyond that" --->
> Which library I should recompile? Could you explain me a little bit?
I'm going to read more about that, thanks.
> And what linux OS I should use?
Before you choose one I suggest you learn some more about how to
configure them - or, even better, hire somebody to do a professional job
I just currious if there is other Linux OS that really suitable for pound, that no need too much configuration.
"hire somebody to do a professional job for you." --> some hardware load balancer technician had try to configure the load balance of the web, but no result bcause of several things.
I'll do that learning thing, somehow you make me want to know more about linux.
I ask because I do not really good with linux, sorry for stupid thing I ask u..
Thanks for your explanation and for pound, it is really a good load balancer...
Postfach, Uetikon am See, CH-8707
Tel: +41-44-920 4904
To unsubscribe send an email with subject 'unsubscribe' to email@example.com.
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for questions.