On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:07:38 +0800, horseriver said: > Actually , my question comes from network performance ,I want to know ,in per second ,the > maximum of tcp connections that can be dealed with by my server. That will be *highly* dependent on what your server code does with each connection. A "hello world" reply and close socket will, of course, go lots faster than something that has to go contact an enterprise-scale database, do 3 SQL joins, and format the results. > How can I do the test and calculate the connection number , Is it possible that my server > can deal with 10k tcp connections per second? 10K/sec peaks can be achieved even on a laptop, assuming a dummy do-nothing service. Keeping that sustained for a real application will depend on the service time needed - if you have 20 CPUs in the box, and spread the load across all 20, you have to average under 2ms to service each request, which will be a killer if you have to go to disk at all for a request. At that point, the guys at Foundry will be more than happy to sell you a load-balancer so you can have a stack of 10 20-CPU servers each of which only handles 1K/sec and thus has a 20ms time budget. > what is the relationship between this and throughput rate? Lots of tiny connections will totally suck at aggregate throughput, if for no other reason than TCP slow-start never gets a chance to really open the transmit window up. But in general, there is always a trade-off between transaction rate and throughput. > Is there document that tells the best optimization of this ? "best" is defined by what your application actually needs. The "best" settings for my NFS server will be totally different than what the HTTP server 12 racks over needs...
Attachment:
pgpjUCPdROfHu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
