I just used a web load performance utility loader.io.

SBBS web performed fairly well. It got up to 66 connections per second (4000 connections over a minute test) before it failed (crashed/sigsegv). 3000 connections test went with only 0.6% errors. 2000 was a perfect run.

I just tested loading my homepage which is very minimal, 5.1kB.

Though I am still concerned about the crash.

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital 52 BBS

Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Noisome to All on Tue Nov 18 2014 02:23 am

I just used a web load performance utility loader.io.

SBBS web performed fairly well. It got up to 66 connections per second (4000 connections over a minute test) before it failed (crashed/sigsegv). 3000 connections test went with only 0.6% errors. 2000 was a perfect run.

I just tested loading my homepage which is very minimal, 5.1kB.

Though I am still concerned about the crash.

If you provide a callstack dump, that'd be helpful in resolving the crash: http://wiki.synchro.net/howto:gdb

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #22:
The third ever Synchronet BBS was The Beast's Domain (sysop: King Drafus). Norco, CA WX: 62.6øF, 15.0% humidity, 10 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

If you provide a callstack dump, that'd be helpful in resolving the crash: http://wiki.synchro.net/howto:gdb

Alright emailed you the info. Is there more information you would like to have?

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital 52 BBS

Re: Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Noisome to Digital Man on Tue Nov 18 2014 01:48 pm

If you provide a callstack dump, that'd be helpful in resolving the crash: http://wiki.synchro.net/howto:gdb

Alright emailed you the info. Is there more information you would like to have?

No, I think that'll do it, but since the web server is really Deuce's baby, I've cc'd him the GDB info and hope he'll chime in.

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #21:
The second ever Synchronet BBS was the Mid-Nite Hacker BBS (sysop: The Zapper). Norco, CA WX: 64.5øF, 17.0% humidity, 5 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Noisome to All on Tue Nov 18 2014 02:23 am

SBBS web performed fairly well. It got up to 66 connections per second (4000 connections over a minute test) before it failed (crashed/sigsegv). 3000 connections test went with only 0.6% errors. 2000 was a perfect run.

I just tested loading my homepage which is very minimal, 5.1kB.

Though I am still concerned about the crash.

Looking at the crash dump highlights an issue with how the RNG is seeded... I plan on taking a look at that after the next release (it's a complex, far-reaching issue).

As for the crash, it's "A JavaScript Thing". Older versions of js_rtpool.c weren't completely compatible with new changes in Seamonkey. If your js_rtpool.c is old, that could explain this crash. If not, I may have to cobble together a Linux box to test on and reproduce this issue.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

As for the crash, it's "A JavaScript Thing". Older versions of js_rtpool.c weren't completely compatible with new changes in Seamonkey. If your js_rtpool.c is old, that could explain this crash. If not, I may have to cobble together a Linux box to test on and reproduce this issue.

It was a fresh compile on Nov 11, and has a date which matches the CVS date:

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1534 Mar 15 2014 js_rtpool.c

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital 52 BBS

Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Noisome to All on Tue Nov 18 2014 02:23 am

I just used a web load performance utility loader.io.

SBBS web performed fairly well. It got up to 66 connections per second (4000 connections over a minute test) before it failed (crashed/sigsegv). 3000 connections test went with only 0.6% errors. 2000 was a perfect run.

I just tested loading my homepage which is very minimal, 5.1kB.

Though I am still concerned about the crash.

whats your avg response time in ms

i had 250 clients in 1 min and got 228ms and 0% errors on apache
i had 205 clients in 1 min and got 6945ms and 44% errors on synchweb

ewwww

whats sad is the apache box is a vm with 200mb of memory on a dual core host, the bbs box is on an atom with a gig of ram.

bbses.info on apache had 18ms 0 errors, and it was under a heavy load doing other stuff at the time i tested it.

my sbbsctrl didnt crash, but it did freeze up the entire computer during the tests
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

whats your avg response time in ms

i had 250 clients in 1 min and got 228ms and 0% errors on apache
i had 205 clients in 1 min and got 6945ms and 44% errors on synchweb

208 ms avg resp
0.0 % err rate
250 clients over 1 min

whats sad is the apache box is a vm with 200mb of memory on a dual core host, the bbs box is on an atom with a gig of ram.

My box is on a quad core VPS system with a gig of ram.

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital 52 BBS

whats your avg response time in ms

i had 250 clients in 1 min and got 228ms and 0% errors on apache
i had 205 clients in 1 min and got 6945ms and 44% errors on synchweb

208 ms avg resp
0.0 % err rate
250 clients over 1 min

whats sad is the apache box is a vm with 200mb of memory on a dual core host, the bbs box is on an atom with a gig of ram.

My box is on a quad core VPS system with a gig of ram.

Here are my other runs:

299 ms avg resp
0.6 % err rate
3000 clients over 1 min

230 ms avg resp
0.0 % err rate
2000 clients over 1 min

170 ms avg resp
0.0 % err rate
1000 clients over 1 min

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital 52 BBS

Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Mro to Noisome on Wed Nov 19 2014 04:51 pm

whats your avg response time in ms

i had 250 clients in 1 min and got 228ms and 0% errors on apache
i had 205 clients in 1 min and got 6945ms and 44% errors on synchweb

Were you loading the same static page, or by "synchweb", do you mean the stock index page vs. "something else" on Apache.

Also, what is the "MaxClients" setting in the [Web] section of your sbbs.ini file?

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Noisome to Deuce on Wed Nov 19 2014 04:50 pm

It was a fresh compile on Nov 11, and has a date which matches the CVS
date:

Rats, JS crashes are the worst. I'll try to shake loose some time to repro and
see if I can fix it.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Web load performance (tested with loader.io)
By: Mro to Noisome on Wed Nov 19 2014 04:51 pm

SBBS web performed fairly well. It got up to 66 connections per second (4000 connections over a minute test) before it failed
(crashed/sigsegv). 3000 connections test went with only 0.6% errors.
2000 was a perfect run.

whats your avg response time in ms

i had 250 clients in 1 min and got 228ms and 0% errors on apache
i had 205 clients in 1 min and got 6945ms and 44% errors on synchweb

I got 3990 clients in 1 min, 179ms and 0 errors on a static image (6.8KiB) from
sbbs over my cable modem. That cruised along at around 80 clients, and it looks like my bandwidth was the limit, not Synchronet (which topped out at about 60% of one CPU worth of utilization).

With my mostly stock index page, I got 3980 in 1 min, 288ms and 0 errors.. tended to run around 90 clients and cruised at 260% CPU, and bandwidth was the limit again (about 30MiB/sec on both runs).

MaxClients is set to 1000 on my system.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)