I'm running a relatively low-traffic site that experiences a large spike in visitors once a week following a site update. During this spike, site performance is extremely poor compared to the rest of the week. The actually load on the servers remains very low, reliably under 10% CPU and under 30% RAM (the hardware should be complete overkill for what we're actually doing), but for some reason Apache seems to be unable to cope with the quantity of requests. We are running apache 2.2.3 on RHEL 5.7, kernel 2.6.18-274.7.1.el5, x86_64.
Attempting to reproduce this behavior during off hours with ab, I'm finding a major drop off in performance when exceeding approximately 256 users. Running the test with the smallest possible use case I could come up with (static text file being retrieved, 223 bytes total) performance is consistently normal with 245 simultaneous requests:
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 15 25 5.8 24 37
Processing: 15 65 22.9 76 96
Waiting: 15 64 23.0 76 96
Total: 30 90 27.4 100 125
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 100
66% 108
75% 111
80% 113
90% 118
95% 120
98% 122
99% 123
100% 125 (longest request)
But as soon as I ratchet up to 265 simultaneous requests, a subset of them start taking an absurd amount of time to complete:
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 13 195 692.6 26 3028
Processing: 15 65 21.3 72 100
Waiting: 15 65 21.3 71 99
Total: 32 260 681.7 101 3058
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 101
66% 108
75% 112
80% 116
90% 121
95% 3028
98% 3040
99% 3044
100% 3058 (longest request)
These results are very consistent across multiple runs. Since there is other traffic going to that box, I'm not sure precisely where the hard cutoff would be, if there is one, but it seems to be suspiciously close to 256.
Naturally, I assumed that this was being caused by the thread limit in prefork, so I went ahead and adjusted the configuration to double the number of available threads and to prevent the pool of threads from growing and shrinking unneccessarily:
<IfModule prefork.c>
StartServers 512
MinSpareServers 512
MaxSpareServers 512
ServerLimit 512
MaxClients 512
MaxRequestsPerChild 5000
</IfModule>
mod_status confirms that I am now running with 512 available threads
8 requests currently being processed, 504 idle workers
However, attempting 265 simultaneous requests still yields almost identical results to before
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 25 211 714.7 31 3034
Processing: 17 94 28.6 103 138
Waiting: 17 93 28.5 103 138
Total: 57 306 700.8 138 3071
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 138
66% 145
75% 150
80% 161
90% 167
95% 3066
98% 3068
99% 3068
100% 3071 (longest request)
After scouring the documentation (and Stack Exchange) I'm at a loss for further configuration settings to attempt to address this bottleneck. Is there something that I'm missing? Should I start looking for answers outside of apache? Has anyone else seen this behavior? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT:
As per Ladadadada's advice, I ran strace against apache. I tried with -tt and -T a few times and couldn't find anything out of the ordinary. I then tried running strace -c against all currently running apache processes, and got this:
% time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
22.09 0.317836 5 62128 4833 open
19.91 0.286388 4 65374 1896 lstat
13.06 0.187854 0 407433 pread
10.70 0.153862 6 27076 semop
7.88 0.113343 3 38598 poll
6.86 0.098694 1 100954 14380 read
(...abdridged)
If I'm reading this right (and bear with me, as I don't use strace very often) none of the system calls can account for the amount of time that these requests are taking. It almost looks like the bottleneck is occurring before the requests even get to the worker threads.
EDIT 2:
As several people suggested, I ran the test again on the web server itself (previously the test was run from a neutral internet location). The results were surprising:
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 11 6.6 12 21
Processing: 5 247 971.0 10 4204
Waiting: 3 245 971.3 7 4204
Total: 16 259 973.3 21 4225
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 21
66% 23
75% 24
80% 24
90% 26
95% 4225
98% 4225
99% 4225
100% 4225 (longest request)
The bottom-line time is similar to the internet-based test, but appears to consistently be a bit worse when run locally. More interestingly, the profile has changed dramatically. Whereas before the bulk of the long-running requests' time was spent in "connect" now the bottleneck appears to be in either processing or waiting. I'm left to suspect that this may actually be a separate issue which was previously being masked by network limitations.
Running the test again from another machine on the same local network as the Apache host, I'm seeing much more reasonable results:
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 1 2 0.8 2 4
Processing: 13 118 99.8 205 222
Waiting: 13 118 99.7 204 222
Total: 15 121 99.7 207 225
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 207
66% 219
75% 220
80% 221
90% 222
95% 224
98% 224
99% 225
100% 225 (longest request)
These two tests together raise a number of questions, but separately from that, there is now a compelling case to be made for some kind of severe network bottleneck happening under a certain amount of load. I think that next steps will be investigating the network layer separately.
What I would do in this situation is run
on one of your Apache processes during the ab test until you capture one of the slow responses. Then have a look through
trace.txt
.The
-tt
and-T
options give you timestamps of the start and duration of each system call to help identify the slow ones.You might find a single slow system call such as
open()
orstat()
or you might find a quick call with (possibly multiple)poll()
calls directly after it. If you find one that's operating on a file or network connection (quite likely) look backwards through the trace until you find that file or connection handle. The earlier calls on that same handle should give you an idea of what thepoll()
was waiting for.Good idea looking at the
-c
option. Did you ensure that the Apache child you were tracing served at least one of the slow requests during that time? (I'm not even sure how you would do this apart from runningstrace
simultaneously on all children.)Unfortunately,
strace
doesn't give us the complete picture of what a running program is doing. It only tracks system calls. A lot can happen inside a program that doesn't require asking the kernel for anything. To figure out if this is happening, you can look at the timestamps of the start of each system call. If you see significant gaps, that's where the time is going. This isn't easily greppable and there are always small gaps between the system calls anyway.Since you said the CPU usage stays low, it's probably not excessive things happening in between system calls but it's worth checking.
Looking more closely at the output from
ab
:The sudden jump in the response times (looks like there are no response times anywhere between 150ms and 3000ms) suggests that there is a specific timeout happening somewhere that gets triggered above around 256 simultaneous connections. A smoother degradation would be expected if you were running out of RAM or CPU cycles normal IO.
Secondly, the slow
ab
response shows that the 3000ms were spent in theconnect
phase. Nearly all of them took around 30ms but 5% took 3000ms. This suggests that the network is the problem.Where are you running
ab
from? Can you try it from the same network as the Apache machine?For more data, try running
tcpdump
at both ends of the connection (preferably withntp
running at both ends so you can sync the two captures up.) and look for any tcp retransmissions. Wireshark is particularly good for analysing the dumps because it highlights tcp retransmissions in a different colour, making them easy to find.It might also be worth looking at the logs of any network devices you have access to. I recently ran into a problem with one of our firewalls where it could handle the bandwidth in terms of kb/s but it couldn't handle the number of packets per second it was receiving. It topped out at 140,000 packets per second. Some quick maths on your
ab
run leads me to believe you would have been seeing around 13,000 packets per second (ignoring the 5% of slow requests). Maybe this is the bottleneck you have reached. The fact that this happens around 256 might be purely a coincidence.