Where is Varnish in this mix?
Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
31–40 of 40 posts
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll be more then happy to see if my configurations can be tweaked. And I was surprised as well, but it seems that it always boils down to the configuration files a small change can sometimes yield great results as seen with a specifying ciphers for SSL.
Like I said, running as a simple reverse-proxy, they should be pretty close. The added latency is really the differentiator when going to a single backend, and that's about all you're measuring. You're control itself is still Now add dozens of backend servers, and start throwing a couple orders of magnitude more traffic at it, and the differences will really start to show. Please note: I'm not saying your numbers are…
Thanks for you feedback, I did do some testing with multiple backends (4 different servers) but it didn't show any substantial changes. I'll see if I can do some in depth in a while.
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#33Even though RC4 is fast you really shouldn't be using it: http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/
Even Google is using it ;)
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#34Even though RC4 is fast you really shouldn't be using it: http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/
There aren't a whole lot of other options yet. https://community.qualys.com/blogs/securitylabs/2013/03/19/r...
You can enable TLS 1.2 ciphers, but there is a large percentage of clients unable to use them, so the fallback is RC4.
> At the moment, the attack is not yet practical because it requires access to millions and possibly billions of copies of the same data encrypted using different keys
So we have some time.
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#35It would be interesting to see the difference with HAProxy if this line was removed: https://github.com/observing/balancerbattle/blob/master/hapr... What the option does is close the connection between the proxy and the backend so that HAProxy will analyse further requests instead of just forwarding to the already established connection. To be fair, I don't know what nginx does - whether connections are kept open or…
The `http-server-close` option did not change anything. But by adding the ciphers it was able to squeeze out the same performance as Nginx. I'll update the tests accordingly. Thanks for the heads up!.
Thanks for testing these. I'm glad HAProxy passes muster with regards to SSL as we're currently moving to 1.5-dev18 from apache SSL offloading.
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#36As a simple reverse proxy for small setups, there is almost no difference between the two, especially when running on a VM. You do miss many of the advanced balancing features in haproxy, but again, this config was a basic reverse proxy, not really load-balancing anything. I haven't worked on these in a couple years, but on real hardware, haproxy could push much more bandwidth. We could saturate 10Gb ethernet fairly…
netflix has chosen nginx to saturate much more than 10Gb. Do you ever try to tune it? In fact nginx default config just sucks, it seems for small vps.
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#37Where is Varnish in this mix?
Varnish is slow as hell, see: http://todsul.com/nginx-varnish
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#38Where is Varnish in this mix?
Varnish is slow as hell, see: http://todsul.com/nginx-varnish
And, yet, running the same test on my own varnish server yields 33k requests/sec with 50 concurrent requests and 28k requests/sec with 200 concurrent requests.
Something tells me that perhaps Tod Sul is doing something wrong.
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Varnish is slow as hell, see: http://todsul.com/nginx-varnish
And, yet, running the same test on my own varnish server yields 33k requests/sec with 50 concurrent requests and 28k requests/sec with 200 concurrent requests. Something tells me that perhaps Tod Sul is doing something wrong.
Absolute numbers are useless. Different hardware will produce different numbers.
Re: Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Proxy's WebSocket support
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, yet, running the same test on my own varnish server yields 33k requests/sec with 50 concurrent requests and 28k requests/sec with 200 concurrent requests. Something tells me that perhaps Tod Sul is doing something wrong.
Absolute numbers are useless. Different hardware will produce different numbers.