I have a simple HTTP server that I was testing. This server interacts with other HTTP servers and Cassandra DB.
Currently I was using 100 users with 1 request/s, so totally 100 tps was on the server. What I noticed with the Docker stats was that the CPU usage became higher and higher and ~ 2-3 hours later the CPU usage reaches the 90% mark, and even more. After that I got a notice from Locust, stating that the measurement may be inconsistent. But the latencies were not increased, so I do not know why this has been happening.
Can you please suggest possible cause(s) of the problem? I think 100 tps should be handled by one vCPU.
Thanks,
AM
There's no way for us to know exactly what's wrong without at very least seeing some code, and even then other factors like the environment or data or server you're running it on or against could have additional factors we wouldn't know about.
It's possible you have a problem with your code for your Locust users, such as a memory leak or they're just doing too much for a single worker to handle that many users. For users only doing simple HTTP calls, a single CPU typically can handle upwards of thousands of requests per second. Do anything more than that and you'll start to expect to reduce what a worker can handle. It's also possible you may just need a more powerful CPU (or more RAM or bandwidth) to do what you want it to do at the scale you want.
Do some profiling to see if you can find any inefficiencies in your code. Run smaller tests to see if the same behavior is evident with smaller loads. Run the same load but with additional Locust workers on other CPUs.
It's also just as possible your DB can't handle the load. The increasing CPU usage could be due to how your code is handling waiting on the connection from the DB. Perhaps the DB could sustain, say, 80 users at an acceptable rate but any additional users makes it fall further and further behind and your Locust users are then waiting longer and longer for the requested data.
For more suggestions, check out the Locust FAQ https://github.com/locustio/locust/wiki/FAQ#increase-my-request-raterps
Related
We have a postres database that has billions of records in it.
We have one client that uses our older API to query the database to fetch thousands of records once a day.
I would say close to the top end of the thousands.
The API is currently on a compute engine behind a load balancer and during the allotted time I spin up 6 instances of this to attempt to help handle the load.
What I have found is that the CPU usage on cloud SQL is maxing out at 100% and most of the other stats are fine, it's just the CPU.
This basically renders our API useless as we can't accept connections and it just shits its self.
What can we do to help this?
Here is the CPU utilisation chart
And the connections
Read/Writes
Memory Usage
You can see in most of the other charts the readings are well within normal for what we expect.
I don't really want to have to beef up the CPU usage if it isn't really the actual underlining problem.
A further thing to note is we have developed a new endpoint for this client specifically to use, they have not got that in place yet, and there is no guarantee that it will reduce the db load.
High CPU usage can most definitely cause dropped or ignored connections. The database engine and underlying OS are fighting for resources and aren't able to respond to the connection in time.
While you can increase CPU usage, it looks like the CPU usage you have it (usually) enough, except during parts where the CPU is at 100%. I'd suggest instead finding out why the query is eating so much CPU usage and optimizing it.
You might be interested in something like Cloud SQL Insights to help debug the query.
We are planning to use locust for performance testing. I have started locust in distributed mode on Kubernetes, with 800 Users for a duration of 5 minutes. Hatch rate is 100 as well. After a couple of minutes, I can see the below warning on the worker log.
[2020-07-15 07:03:15,990] pipeline1-locust-worker-1-gp824/WARNING/root: Loadgen CPU usage above 90%! This may constrain your throughput and may even give inconsistent response time measurements!
I am unable to figure what is 90% here since I have not specified any resource limits. Is it the 90% of node capacity? Which is unlikely since we use beefy nodes, 16Vcpus, and 128Gb memory. Can anyone give any insight?
It is 90% of one core (which is all a single locust process can utilize because of the python GIL) (measured using https://psutil.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#psutil.Process.cpu_percent)
If you have 16vcpu you need 16 processes to utilize the whole node.
I guess we should clarify the message.
I have a requirement to use locust to simulate 20,000 (and higher) users in a 10 minute test window.
the locustfile is a tasksquence of 9 API calls. I am trying to determine the ideal number of workers, and how many workers should be attached to an EC2 on AWS. My testing shows with 20 workers, on two EC2 instance, the CPU load is minimal. the master however suffers big time. a 4 CPU 16 GB RAM system as the master ends up thrashing to the point that the workers start printing messages like this:
[2020-06-12 19:10:37,312] ip-172-31-10-171.us-east-2.compute.internal/INFO/locust.util.exception_handler: Retry failed after 3 times.
[2020-06-12 19:10:37,312] ip-172-31-10-171.us-east-2.compute.internal/ERROR/locust.runners: RPCError found when sending heartbeat: ZMQ sent failure
[2020-06-12 19:10:37,312] ip-172-31-10-171.us-east-2.compute.internal/INFO/locust.runners: Reset connection to master
the master seems memory exhausted as each locust master process has grown to 12GB virtual RAM. ok - so the EC2 has a problem. But if I need to test 20,000 users, is there a machine big enough on the planet to handle this? or do i need to take a different approach and if so, what is the recommended direction?
In my specific case, one of the steps is to download a file from CloudFront which is randomly selected in one of the tasks. This means the more open connections to cloudFront trying to download a file, the more congested the available network becomes.
Because the app client is actually a native app on a mobile and there are a lot of factors affecting the download speed for each mobile, I decided to to switch from a GET request to a HEAD request. this allows me to test the response time from CloudFront, where the distribution is protected by a Lambda#Edge function which authenticates the user using data from earlier in the test.
Doing this dramatically improved the load test results and doesn't artificially skew the other testing happening as with bandwidth or system resource exhaustion, every other test will be negatively impacted.
Using this approach I successfully executed a 10,000 user test in a ten minute run-time. I used 4 EC2 T2.xlarge instances with 4 workers per T2. The 9 tasks in test plan resulted in almost 750,000 URL calls.
The answer for the question in the title is: "It depends"
Your post is a little confusing. You say you have 10 master processes? Why?
This problem is most likely not related to the master at all, as it does not care about the size of the downloads (which seems to be the only difference between your test case and most other locust tests)
There are some general tips that might help:
Switch to FastHttpUser (https://docs.locust.io/en/stable/increase-performance.html)
Monitor your network usage (if your load gens are already maxing out their bandwidth or CPU then your test is very unrealistic anyway, and adding more users just adds to the noice. In general, start low and work your way up)
Increase the number of loadgens
In general, the number of users is not an issue for locust, but number of requests per second or bandwidth might be.
In a multi core machine what is the best metric to understand whether cpu is loaded or not ?
I have a web application that sends a post request to apache CGI server. CGI server loops over the post data and launches perl process for each of the item in the loop. Since requests from clients ends up hitting a single endpoint, I am concerned if I end up creating lots of processes which my server can't handle. Hence I wanted to understand what system metric should I check before launching a new process from loop.
Note: I have a 20 core machine.
The reason the answer isn't easy to find, is that it depends on the nature of your processes, and which system constraint is your limiting factor.
For CPU intensive work, then the metric to look at is load average - load average is a measure of processes in a runnable state - very roughly if LA is the same as number of cores, then you're running your CPUs at maximum.
However, it's increasingly the case that CPU is not the limiting factor - you may have a finite amount of memory, and memory hungry processes will consume it. 'spare' memory is used for caching, so filling the whole lot up actually starts to slow things down (because you have a smaller cache). Over spilling the available will either cause swapping or OOMkiller.
But as you mention apache and web, then chances are pretty good that your network pipe is a limiting factor - controlling bandwidth from the local host is actually surprisingly hard.
And then there's disk IO - which may also be a factor - I think that's unlikely for a web server, because your outbound network will usually be a tighter limit.
It all depends what your processes are doing - if they're lightweight 'helpers' that are mostly idle, or heavyweight 'grinders' that all introduce noticeable load.
So the best answer I can give is a very vague estimate - if your processes are CPU intensive, cap them at 2 per core. If your processes are memory, aim to consume about 50% of your system RAM. If your processes are IO intensive, aim to consume about 50% of your IO (either network or disk).
I am running some code in parallel by using a forking module in perl called Parallel::ForkManager. I have currently setting the maximum number of processes to 30:
my $pm = Parallel::ForkManager->new(30);
What would be an advisable maximum number of processes to create? I am doing this on a commercial grade Solaris server, but I still don't want to overload the system.
In downloading files, this really depends on
how many different hosts you're downloading from, and
how fast they will give you the requested files compared to your maximum bandwidth.
If you're downloading files from a single machine to a single machine on a local network, 2-3 is about max. If you're downloading files from 30 different servers on the internet, all of which are slow, but you have a fat pipe, then 30 might be reasonable.
There is no one universal right answer here. Unless you count "it depends."
The purpose of "downloading files" was mentioned, but in comments a while ago and I take the question as stated, to also be more general.
The only relevant measure is when you start reaching saturation in performance gains, with particular software on that system. The formal limits are huge and meaningless while rules of thumb are very general.
Let's imagine to run 10 processes and the time to complete the job drops 10 times. Increase to 20 processes and the time drops 20 times -- but for 30 processes the gain is the factor of 10. At this point we have loaded the system. Push further and the performance will degrade rapidly, and for everyone. At that point the server is overloaded, even though it allows, say, 1024 processes per user (and really ten or more times that for a server).
With a few processes per core the machine is engaged and I'd say that that is a good rule of thumb. However, it is too general. I doubt that you'd gain much in performance by going to that many processes, given the many other factors that affect it.
Accessing one web server The server's capability is the gospel. They may have posted how many requests per seconds they are happy with. Or they may have a limit on number of processes per user, say 10 or 20. If that means that many simultaneous downloads then that's your limit. But I'd be careful -- if the site is close and fast a request may complete in as little as 0.1 or 0.2 seconds. Then, with 10 processes you may be hitting the server 100 times a second. I do not recommend that. If there is no information I'd say keep it to a few requests per second. The performance and server load also depend on the content -- big downloads are different from pulling many skinny web pages. The I/O on your side may matter but I'd expect the server to set the limit. If you are going to use their service a lot why not send an email and ask what they are OK with.
I/O, network (many servers) or disk With network the performance depends on every piece of hardware in the path as well as on software. Nobody can tell without trying it out. The disk I/O is very complex. To add to trouble it is unclear whether it'd be your disks or network that is the bottleneck. I'd expect clear performance gains up to a few tens of processes, and probably fewer.
CPU or memory bound This may be easiest -- processing that can be broken up in parallel on 30 cores can enjoy close to a factor of 30 speedup (given no other bottlenecks). Going beyond the number of cores clearly leads to reduced performance gain. Concurrent (but not parallel) processing is far more complicated. If your code is memory intensive that is yet completely different.
Useful basic tools for assessing above components are iostat -xzn, netstat -I, and vmstat. But there is a bit of a curve to learning how to interpret their output and hopefully it doesn't come to that.
The conclusion is that you have to time it. Take your real application and time it running in one process. Do this 3 to 5 times and see the average (throw away obvious outliers). Then repeat with 5 processes, then with 10, etc. I'd expect that the trend will start slowing down far sooner than the 30 processors you mention. Once it gets to that the system is loaded and whoever works on it will notice. Very soon after that the performance will likely degrade rapidly. Proper benchmarking tools, like Benchmark, are far more sophisticated but this may well settle the issue. If you see strange or inconsistent behavior you may have to dig into details, starting with tools mentioned above.
What "overloaded" means is a bit unclear. I like to cap my use of resources well before other people are affected. But it may be possible to push it, in particular if you can run when it's quiet. I doubt that you'll keep having a worthy gain all the way to the number of available processors.
So there is no concern about "overloading" the server if you first time things. The performance limit will tell you when to stop. I'd say that your limit of 30 is very reasonable. Unless this is really about downloading files, in which case the web server is likely all that matters.
You should set the maximum number of processes to 60.