A few days ago the folks at techempower published round 5 of their well-received current series of web framework benchmarks, the first one in which spray participates. The techempower benchmark consist of a number of different test scenarios exercising various parts of a web framework/stack, only one of which we have supplied a spray-based implementation for: the “JSON serialization” test. The other parts of this benchmark target framework layers (like database access), which spray intentionally doesn’t provide.
Here are the published results of the JSON test of round 5 presented in an alternative visualization (but showing the exact same data):
- Avg. requests/sec as reported by wrk
- Avg. requests/sec projected from avg. latency
- ⬤Not JVM-based
The test was run between two identical machines connected via a GB-Ethernet link, a client machine generating HTTP requests with wrk as the load generator, and a server machine running the respective “benchmarkee”. In order to provide an indication of how performance varies with the underlying hardware platform all tests are run twice, once between two EC2 “m1.large” instances and once between two dedicated i7-2600K workstations.
In the graph above we compare the performance results on dedicated hardware with the ones on the EC2 machines. We would expect a strong correlation between the two, with most data points assembled around the trendline. The “bechmarkees” that are far off the trendline either don’t scale up or down as well as the “pack” or suffer from some configuration issue on their “weak” side (e.g. cpoll_cppsp and onion on i7 or gemini/servlet and spark on the EC2). Either way, some investigation as to the cause of the problem might be advised.
In addition to plotting the average requests/sec numbers reported by wrk at the end of a 30 second run we have included an alternative projection of the request count, based on the average request latencies reported by wrk (e.g. 1 ms avg. latency across 64 connections should result in about 64K avg. req/s). Ideally these projected results should roughly match the actually reported ones (bar any rounding issues).
However, as you can see in the chart the two results differ substantially for some benchmarkees. To us this is an indication that something was not quite right during the respective test run. Maybe the client running wrk experienced some other load which affected its ability to either generate requests or measure latency properly. Or we are seeing the results of wrk’s somewhat “unorthodox” request latency sampling implementation. Either way, our confidence regarding the validity of the avg. request counts and the latency data would be higher if the two results were more closely aligned.
The special value of this benchmark stems from the sheer number of different frameworks/libraries/toolsets that the techempower team has managed to include. Round 5 provides results for a very heterogeneous group of close to 70 (!) benchmarkees written in 17 different languages. As such it gives a good indication of the rough performance characteristics that can be expected from the different solutions. For example, would you have expected a Ruby on Rails application to run about 10-20 times slower than a good JVM-based alternative? Most people would have assumed a performance difference but the actual magnitude thereof might come as a surprise and is certainly interesting, not only for someone currently facing a technology decision.
For us as authors of an HTTP stack we look to such benchmarks from a slightly different angle. The main question for us is: How does our solution perform compared to alternatives on the same platform? What can we learn from them? Where do we still have potential for optimization that we appear to have left on the table? What effect on performance do the various architecture decisions have that one has to make when writing a library like spray?
As you can see from the graph above we can be quite satisfied with spray’s performance in this particular benchmark. It outperforms all other JVM-based HTTP stacks on the EC2 and, when looking at throughput projected from the latency data, even on dedicated hardware.
This shows us that our work on optimizing spray’s HTTP implementation is paying off. The version used in this benchmark is a recent spray 1.1 nightly build, which includes most (but not all) performance optimizations planned for the coming 1.0/1.1/1.2 triple release (1.0 for Akka 2.0, 1.1 for Akka 2.1 and 1.2 for Akka 2.2).
But, does this benchmark prove that spray is the fastest HTTP stack on the JVM?
Unfortunately it doesn’t. This one test exercises way to small a percentage of all the logic of the various HTTP implementations in order to be able to properly rank them. It gives an indication, but hardly more.
Let’s look more closely at what the “JSON serialization test” of the techempower benchmark actually exercises. The client creates between 8 and 256 long-lived concurrent TCP connections to the server and fires as many test requests as possible across these connections. Each request hits the server’s NIC, bubbles up through the Linux kernel’s network stack, gets picked up by the benchmarkees IO abstraction and is passed on to the HTTP layer (where it is parsed and maybe routed) before actually being handled by the “application logic”. In the case of this benchmark the application merely creates a small JSON object, puts it into an HTTP response and sends it back down the stack, where it passes all layers again in the opposite direction.
As such this benchmark tests how well the benchmarkee:
- interacts with the kernel with regard to “pulling out” the raw data arriving at a socket
- manages internal communication between its inner layers (e.g. IO <-> HTTP <-> Application)
- parses HTTP requests and renders HTTP responses
- serializes small JSON objects
It does all this using small requests with a fixed set of HTTP headers over a rather small number of long-lived connections. Also, it does it all at once without giving us a clue as to the potential strengths and weaknesses of the individual parts of the stack.
If we wanted to learn something deeper about how spray performs compared to its JVM-based competitors and where its strengths and weaknesses lie we’d have to setup a whole range of benchmarks that measure:
- raw IO performance:1 to say 50K long-lived concurrent connections, minimal request and response sizes
- connection setup overhead:varying number of per-request connections, minimal request and response sizes
- HTTP request parser performance:varying number of request headers and header value sizes, varying entity sizes
- HTTP response renderer performance:varying number of response headers and header value sizes, varying entity sizes
- HTTP chunking performance:chunked requests and responses with varying number and size of message chunks
- HTTP pipelining performance:varying number of request batch sizes
- SSL performance:1 to say 50K long-lived connections, minimal request and response sizes
- Websocket performance
- System- and JVM-level metrics (CPU utilization, GC-Activity, etc.)
If we had a benchmark suite producing numbers like these we’d feel much more comfortable in establishing a proper performance-based ranking of spray and its alternatives. And wouldn’t it be great if there was something like a “continuous benchmarking” infrastructure, that would automatically produce these benchmark results upon a simple git push into its repository?
Oh well... I guess our ever-growing todo-list just received one more item marked important... :)