django/daphne
1
1
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/django/daphne.git synced 2025-04-21 01:02:06 +03:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Added in a Summary of Results Section (#438)

Browse Source 
* Starting reporting write up.

* Added in charts

* Added in images to report

* Cleaned up comments

* Added in clarifications about the testing

* Added in clarification

* Added date

* Added in subdir with same content

* Added in supervisor configs

* updated the readme

* Update and rename README.rst to README.md

* Update README.md

* Added in version info.

* Changes to root info

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

* Cleaned up presentation

* Update README.rst

* Updated images

* Updated images and content

* Added in summary
This commit is contained in:
Robert Roskam 2016-11-29 15:29:21 -05:00 committed by Andrew Godwin
parent 43b23dc295
commit 920dd74fa4
1 changed files with 29 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

30
loadtesting/2016-09-06/README.rst
View File

@ -1,7 +1,35 @@
Django Channels Load Testing Results for (2016-09-06)
===============
The goal of these tests is to see how channels performs with normal HTTP traffic under heavy load with a control.
The goal of these load tests is to see how Channels performs with normal HTTP traffic under heavy load.
In order to handle WebSockets, Channels introduced ASGI, a new interface spec for asynchronous request handling. Also,
Channels implemented this spec with Daphne--an HTTP, HTTP2, and WebSocket protocol server.
The load testing completed has been to compare how well Daphne using 1 worker performs with normal HTTP traffic in
comparison to a WSGI HTTP server. Gunincorn was chosen as its configuration was simple and well-understood.
Summary of Results
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daphne is not as efficient as its WSGI counterpart. When considering only latency, Daphne can have 10 times the latency
when under the same traffic load as gunincorn. When considering only throughput, Daphne can have 40-50% of the total
throughput of gunicorn while still being at 2 times latency.
The results should not be surprising considering the overhead involved. However, these results represent the simplest
case to test and should be represented as saying that Daphne is always slower than an WSGI server. These results are
a starting point, not a final conclusion.
Some additional things that should be tested:
- More than 1 worker
- A separate server for redis
- Comparison to other WebSocket servers, such as Node's socket.io or Rails' Action cable
Methodology
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In order to control for variances, several measures were taken: