Re: HAProxy, NGINX and Rails anyone?

From: Willy Tarreau <>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:00:49 +0200

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:44:19AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Understood. I was wondering if they had haproxy properly configured. Frankly
> haproxy's docs are really hard to digest for newcomers, and are prolly the
> biggest impediment to growing the user base.

Yes, I know.

> It's one giant text file so you
> basically have to know what you are looking for already. (It's documentation
> geared toward advanced haproxy users and haproxy developers.)

That's the reason why I want to quickly get rid of the old files, and only keep the reference manual and the architecture manual, since the later provides immediate solutions to existing problems, though it's a bit outdated now (contains no reference to content-switching).

> When things
> slow down a bit, I plan to help out with the Wiki efforts to address newbie
> documentation.

That's much appreciated :-)

> > Now, that said, I know about people who have a handful of machines
> > all saturating gig pipes all the day with moderate CPU usage. And
> > judging by the workload (large transfers essentially, no problem
> > with running one process per CPU core), it should be possible to
> > use a 10 Gig NIC in one single machine. But this case is extreme,
> > as most people serve smaller files. From my first series of tests,
> > you need to serve files larger than 50kB in average to go beyond
> > 5 Gbps (that was about 13000 hits/s). And you needed an average of
> > 500kB to reach 9 Gbps.
> I thought you had posted that you saturated a 10G NIC somewhere? (Maybe I
> misunderstood/misremembered something.)

Yes I did, but it was on my lab. It proves the component by itself can withstand this level of load, but it does not say that everyone has similar workload (eg: many "large" files). Sites with many movies or ISO mirrors are completely compatible with this workload. Standard sites are not as much (though 3-5 Gbps should be a reasonable goal with a good 10Gig NIC and a properly tuned TCP stack).

> > You should also be aware that reaching these loads on one machine
> > requires a lot of system tweaking. You can run out of memory in
> > seconds, and if the system runs low on network buffers, you observe
> > terrible performance. It's always a trade between raw performance
> > and reliability.
> I got ya... I still say it would be interesting to see if we could improve
> those Wordpress testing numbers using haproxy. (Even with real world traffic
> it should be possible to beat 1.2Gbit/sec)

It depends on a lot of factors :

But you obviously can't blame them for not reconsidering their choice once they made it if they are satisfied :-)

> > These days, I would say that 10Gig becomes affordable but a lot
> > of work is required to get the best of it, while reaching gig
> > speeds is almost a child's game.
> Key word, "almost". ;)

Of course :-)

Willy Received on 2008/08/01 18:00

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/08/01 18:15 CEST