Technical > Hardware

Identifying System Bottlenecks

(1/4) > >>

Spiffster:
We have 2.0.4 setup in production between two offices:

HQ: 1Gb/1Gb
Remote: 50Mb/10Mb

Hot transfers to the remote site we are seeing 25% improvement over that 50Mb link while we are seeing over 300% improvement on the 10Mb link. So effectively things are operating at 60Mb/30Mb which is very impressive but I cant help but think we could do even better on that 50Mb link. During file transfer I dont see one thread go over 40% utilization on an E3-1245. That system is running a single SSD (Crucial MX100 128GB).

Can we squeeze even more performance out of wanos than this setup will allow? If so, is there a reliable method to determine where the bottleneck may be? I would imagine it would have to be IO, right?

ahenning:
v.2.0.4 and v.2.0.5 are basically identically except for the one line MultiSite patch and version numbers.

Bottlenecks:
At 40% I don't think it is in Wanos or the hardware, but one way to check if more efficiency would improve throughput is to set CLICK=false in the /tce/etc/wanos/wanos.conf
It still uses too much memory to be the default mode, but we are working on it. If 3GB+ Ram is available it will be fine.

Note the receiving side can also be a bottleneck. E.g. the Wanos 200 appliance tops out at receiving 30 Mbps even though the head end can process a lot more.

I faintly recall noting 20MB/s copy speed late yesterday, but could be wrong? Is it possible that hot transfers improve after hours when providers WAN links are least busy and contention ratios low. I am wondering if contention, congestion and latency is starting to affect throughput during business hours. Another control check is to determine if the 50 Mbps runs at 50 Mbps during office hours without Wanos.

A test with multiple simultaneous transfers can be used to determine if the bottleneck is perhaps on the TCP layer. If this is the case we can look at  implementing TCP window scaling tweaks.

60 Mbps hot transfer should translate into <6 Mbps WAN bandwidth. It might be a small speed boost over 50 Mbps, but the saving on the link that is not contending with other transfers is significant.

Spiffster:
Dont worry, I realize the difference between Mb / 8 = MB
The testing I was doing was last night around midnight and online speed tests were showing full bandwidth was available on both ends, so bandwidth contention should not be an issue. I do see that when file transfers start they burst to higher speeds then taper off to the numbers I provided... so they are probably conservative. Thing is, when I see that wanos is capable of 300% increase, I am trying to find if I can see similar improvements on the other side.

Im not complaining by any means, wanos is performing quite well, im just being a bit greedy now :)

I will try CLICK=false option as we have oodles of memory available on both ends (12GB).

ahenning:
Ok great, that config parameter made a significant difference in some of our tests, so maybe it does the trick.

Another useful feature I think we need to add is a Diagnostics > Benchmark page to provide some insight into what is possible on the hardware.

Spiffster:

--- Quote from: ahenning on March 19, 2015, 02:40:55 PM ---Another useful feature I think we need to add is a Diagnostics > Benchmark page to provide some insight into what is possible on the hardware.

--- End quote ---

That would be great to have!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page