mirror of
http://git.haproxy.org/git/haproxy.git/
synced 2024-12-16 08:24:42 +00:00
418b8c0c41
This library is designed to emit a zlib-compatible stream with no
memory usage and to favor resource savings over compression ratio.
While zlib requires 256 kB of RAM per compression context (and can only
support 4000 connections per GB of RAM), the stateless compression
offered by libslz does not need to retain buffers between subsequent
calls. In theory this slightly reduces the compression ratio but in
practice it does not have that much of an effect since the zlib
window is limited to 32kB.
Libslz is available at :
http://git.1wt.eu/web?p=libslz.git
It was designed for web compression and provides a lot of savings
over zlib in haproxy. Here are the preliminary results on a single
core of a core2-quad 3.0 GHz in 32-bit for only 300 concurrent
sessions visiting the home page of www.haproxy.org (76 kB) with
the default 16kB buffers :
BW In BW Out BW Saved Ratio memory VSZ/RSS
zlib 237 Mbps 92 Mbps 145 Mbps 2.58 84M / 69M
slz 733 Mbps 380 Mbps 353 Mbps 1.93 5.9M / 4.2M
So while the compression ratio is lower, the bandwidth savings are
much more important due to the significantly lower compression cost
which allows to consume even more data from the servers. In the
example above, zlib became the bottleneck at 24% of the output
bandwidth. Also the difference in memory usage is obvious.
More tests run on a single core of a core i5-3320M, with 500 concurrent
users and the default 16kB buffers :
At 100% CPU (no limit) :
BW In BW Out BW Saved Ratio memory VSZ/RSS hits/s
zlib 480 Mbps 188 Mbps 292 Mbps 2.55 130M / 101M 744
slz 1700 Mbps 810 Mbps 890 Mbps 2.10 23.7M / 9.7M 2382
At 85% CPU (limited) :
BW In BW Out BW Saved Ratio memory VSZ/RSS hits/s
zlib 1240 Mbps 976 Mbps 264 Mbps 1.27 130M / 100M 1738
slz 1600 Mbps 976 Mbps 624 Mbps 1.64 23.7M / 9.7M 2210
The most important benefit really happens when the CPU usage is
limited by "maxcompcpuusage" or the BW limited by "maxcomprate" :
in order to preserve resources, haproxy throttles the compression
ratio until usage is within limits. Since slz is much cheaper, the
average compression ratio is much higher and the input bandwidth
is quite higher for one Gbps output.
Other tests made with some reference files :
BW In BW Out BW Saved Ratio hits/s
daniels.html zlib 1320 Mbps 163 Mbps 1157 Mbps 8.10 1925
slz 3600 Mbps 580 Mbps 3020 Mbps 6.20 5300
tv.com/listing zlib 980 Mbps 124 Mbps 856 Mbps 7.90 310
slz 3300 Mbps 553 Mbps 2747 Mbps 5.97 1100
jquery.min.js zlib 430 Mbps 180 Mbps 250 Mbps 2.39 547
slz 1470 Mbps 764 Mbps 706 Mbps 1.92 1815
bootstrap.min.css zlib 790 Mbps 165 Mbps 625 Mbps 4.79 777
slz 2450 Mbps 650 Mbps 1800 Mbps 3.77 2400
So on top of saving a lot of memory, slz is constantly 2.5-3.5 times
faster than zlib and results in providing more savings for a fixed CPU
usage. For links smaller than 100 Mbps, zlib still provides a better
compression ratio, at the expense of a much higher CPU usage.
Larger input files provide slightly higher bandwidth for both libs, at
the expense of a bit more memory usage for zlib (it converges to 256kB
per connection).
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| common | ||
| import | ||
| proto | ||
| types | ||