Bad performance of nginx with Tomcat vs. Apache with Tomcat
changsong at me.com
Fri Sep 4 03:36:39 MSD 2009
It is not about 50K single node nginx throughput.
I have a standard TCP/IP tuning settings.
We can reach 70K throughput in some workloads.
THey ALL depends on workloads.
I have not given all the details so that why you are saying that but
we are measure and capturing every possible system resource under /proc.
dstat does not tell you everything.
We are currently using collectl and collectd, and captures everything
This is a sample of nginx access log (proxy service time and nginx
service time is there)
[03/Sep/2009:12:19:02 +0900] 10.25.131.46 200 8254 gzip:-% conns:
199229 up_response_t:0.392 svc_t:0.831 "GET /index_think.jsp HTTP/1.1"
[03/Sep/2009:12:19:02 +0900] 10.25.131.48 200 20524 gzip:-% conns:
199622 up_response_t:0.150 svc_t:0.668 "GET /static/20k.jsp HTTP/1.1"
I don't think we are in a position to debug deeper into nginx since we
need to move on.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 7:19 AM, István wrote:
> I see,
> well I was able to reach about 50K req/s on a single node with nginx
> with tuning linux/tcp stack/nginx and i learned one thing:
> measure instead of guess
> (and as a side effect: debug instead of guess.)
> So, if i were you i would start dstat(dstat -cgilpymn) on that host
> and see the different elements of you system, enable debug logging,
> even stracing nginx
> This is the way I think.
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Chang Song <changsong at me.com> wrote:
> It didn't really matter what config I used.
> I tried all combinations of
> worker_process (2-512)
> worker_connections (512-16000)
> accept_mutex (on/off)
> tcp_nopush (on/off)
> tcp_nodelay (on/off)
> proxy_buffer* (various sizes)
> and other proxy related parameters you can imagine.
> The one I showed you has the best performance
> The following showed the best performance across the board
> worker_process 2; # since we have 2 core machine
> worker_connections 16000;
> accept_mutex off;
> max_connections 256; # ey-balancer (tomcat had 512 threads)
> everything else default
> Thank you.
> On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:26 PM, István wrote:
>> I think it would be beneficial to show us your nginx config :)
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Chang Song <changsong at me.com> wrote:
>> Sometime ago, I posted an message about Nginx performance when
>> paired with Tomcat.
>> We recently did extensive in-house testing of various workload
>> against Nginx with Tomcat vs Apache vs Tomcat.
>> Apache wins hands down.
>> Here's the basic setup
>> 1. Nginx (2 proc/8192 connections) -> http/1.0 -> Tomcat (HTTP
>> 2. Apache (512 prefork) -> AJP -> Tomcat (AJP)
>> Both KeepAlive off (we don't use KeepAlive due to L4 switch)
>> The physical server is 2 core Intel Xeon, which is typical web
>> server config here.
>> We have three grinder 3.2 load generators.
>> We tested 4K and 20K Tomcat simple HTML file, 20K simple HTML with
>> intentional 10% 200ms
>> sleep in Tomcat serving (emulate slow DB query), etc.
>> Every single case, Apache wins by at least 10-15%.
>> Throughput and response time.
>> Nginx uses a bit less CPU cycles (10-20%), but it is not able drive
>> Tomcat to 100% CPU.
>> Here's my take on this performance problem.
>> 1. Lack of AJP support, which is an optimized HTTP protocol
>> First of all, this is a serious bottleneck.
>> * AJP has much less communication overhead than HTTP
>> 2. Lack of HTTP KeepAlive support for proxy
>> * Lack of AJP may be compensated with HTTP keepalive support
>> since there are
>> at least twice the number of TIME_WAIT sockets (connection
>> establishment mean time
>> is at least twice - three times slower than that of Apache)
>> 3. Lack of connection pooling
>> * Ey-balancer makes things a bit easier, response times are
>> stable, but still the same
>> average TPS and response time.
>> 4. There seems to be a huge bug in connection management code
>> Two mix of transactions: 20K HTML serving and 8K HTML with
>> intentional 200ms delay in Tomcat logic
>> With Apache, 20K HTML serving took 36 ms on average while 8K
>> HTML took 258 ms
>> With Nginx, 20K HTML serving took 600 ms on average while 8K
>> HTML took 817 ms
>> I really cannot explain these difference. Not even TCP connection
>> overhead or lack of AJP.
>> My questions is "should I abandon nginx at this point"?
>> I know nginx is great proxy and static file server but I cannot
>> prove my point with Tomcat over and over again.
>> Thank you
>> the sun shines for all
> the sun shines for all
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nginx