Re: Solaris x86 tuning...

From: Jason J. W. Williams <>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:58:25 -0600

If that's the case, I'd definitely break out DTraceToolkit and figure out where it's hanging.


On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Matt Banks <> wrote:
> FWIW, I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure how event-ports, epoll vs poll and select is going to cause load times to increase for us by 500% with one client hitting haproxy vs that same one client hitting apache directly.  I can see it having a negative effect with a heavy load (exclusively) but that (to me - I claim no expertise in the matter) doesn't explain the performance hit of one single client loading one web page.
> matt
> On May 19, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>> I'm new to HAProxy myself, but I'm going to guess it does NOT have
>> support for event-ports (Solaris' version of epoll or kqueues) which
>> means it's going to use poll() and be much less performant. It's
>> pretty much impossible to do efficient asynchronous network servers
>> without epoll, kqueue or event-port support depending on your OS.
>> -J
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Matt Banks <> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> In a nutshell, we REALLY like HAProxy.  We've been using it on RHEL/Cent for
>>> a while with great success (running under VMWare/VSphere.)  However, most of
>>> what we do is under Solaris, and we're finding that we don't get nearly as
>>> good of results running under Solaris 10 x86.  We've compiled it using gcc 3
>>> and gcc 4, we've tried with USE_STATIC_PCRE=1 and without.  (With proved
>>> better.) We've even tried tweaking some of the ndd settings (rather blindly
>>> after a google search gave us
>>> this: to
>>> no avail.  We've tried it in a zone with up to 1GB of RAM, and directly on
>>> the server itself pointing to  Things are just slower.  They
>>> work, but slowly.
>>> Frankly, we're baffled.  Using a backend of two servers, there are delays of
>>> up to 5 seconds over a direct connection to the apache server itself.  An
>>> offsite RHEL version of HAProxy (with a latency of around 30ms) provided us
>>> MUCH faster results than any Solaris install has.
>>> Is there something we're missing?  We're about to the point of invoking
>>> dtrace to dig into what's going on, but I just wanted to make sure we
>>> weren't missing something obvious...
>>> Thanks,
>>> matt
Received on 2010/05/20 02:58

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2010/05/20 03:00 CEST