a11y adhd aufs awk battery Beryl best practice blog Boston BølerLAN cairo code community Compiz Compiz Fusion composite Council debugging development drm educational examples experiment eZoom file sharing fullscreen funny gadgets gnupg gsoc Hacking home improvement informational linux maximumize multihead munin Oslo pictures plugin political pop quiz presentation preview purging quote ranting resize review ritalin rrd sandbox screenshot script security security.vcl shelf shell smartcard statistics swap sysadmin Totem tuning tutorial Ubuntu UDS utility Varnish vdpau video vsts wiki wm XFixes
A free software-hacker's blog
Category Archives: /dev/random
April 13, 2012Posted by on
I’ve moved to http://kly.no
Hopefully this is the last time I move. I own the domain, control the server and software etc, so I should be good.
Please update your bookmarks, and sorry for the inconvenience. (Leaving this as a varnish tag so people only reading that will catch it)
June 9, 2011Posted by on
Varnish 3.0.0 beta2 was just released, and we’re aiming for 3.0.0 next week.
The release date is set for Thursday the 16th (next week(June, 2011, for the potential future archive crawlers)), and several release parties are planned. Varnish Software will be present in Santa Clara, London and Oslo, but numerous parties are planned all around the world.
This will be a very special day for everyone in Varnish Software. Varnish 2.0.0 was released roughly the same week I started working at Redpill Linpro, before I was really involved with Varnish, and I still regret that I didn’t snatch one of those fancy 2.0-t-shirts.
While there are too many news to mention, there are two that stand out more than anything.
The first is gzip compression and the second is the Varnish module-architecture, or simply vmods. That most of ESI has been re-factored under the hood will be evident in future releases, and the same goes for streaming delivery.
– “What, you don’t already have compression?!”
Remember, Varnish is a caching service. Most of the time you don’t need it to do the compression, because the web server will do it for you. But there are good reasons for why you want it. ESI is the primary use-case.
With ESI, Varnish needs to parse the content, and it can’t do that if it doesn’t understand the transfer encoding. With Varnish 2.1, you have to send uncompressed data to Varnish if you want to use ESI. This means you have to either deliver uncompressed content to your clients, or use yet an other service in front of Varnish.
But let me get a bit technical, because Varnish 3.0’s compression is pretty awe-inspiring.
So with ESI, you have multiple, individually cached elements that make up a single user-visible page. So what we could do, is glue it all together and compress it before we send it. The downside is that we’ll do the compression over and over. An alternative would be to cache the compressed result as long as the individual elements are unchanged, but that will require more space and more complexity.
So what does Varnish 3.0 does? It stores the elements compressed, modifies the right gzip-bits and glues it all together on the fly, without decompressing it. If a single element is changed, only that element needs to be updated. This is probably the best solution, even if the complexity of meddling with binary gzip headers directly can lead to some pretty tricky code. I challenge you to find a solution that handles compression in a smarter way.
Varnish 3.0 also does decompression. If your browser doesn’t support compression (Possibly a script or other tool, real browsers support compression), Varnish will decompress the object for you on the fly. This is an other huge improvement over Varnish 2.1. In Varnish 2.1, this is solved using Vary: and storing different copies of the same object based on compression.
We can also do the same with the backend-data: If ESI needs to read the data, Varnish 3.0 can decompress it on the fly, parse it, then re-compress it before storing it.
And for you, the user, the complexity is fairly non-existent. Push the button, remove that nginx(no hard feelings)server you had doing compression, ????, profit!
VCL, the Varnish Configuration Language, is a flexible way of configuring Varnish. Since it is already translated from VCL to C, the compiled and linked in to the running Varnish instance, VCL has “always” had in-line C: Anywhere you want to, you can tell the VCL compiler that this is pure C code, and pass it directly to the compiler instead of trying to translate from VCL to C first. This was mainly provided because:
1. It didn’t add any complexity and was actually less work.
2. It provided an escape chute for features we didn’t want in Varnish-proper, but were valid for some users.
What features could that be? Syslog-support, geoip-integration, cryptographic verification of authorization headers, etc.
It turned out to be very useful, but impractical and difficult to re-use. Since it was all glued to your VCL, it meant that you had to stick C code in the middle of your regular configuration, and it made it very hard to combine two different features if you didn’t know C yourself. And linking towards external libraries required parameter changes.
Enter varnish modules.
Simply put, vmods are a way of letting you do the same thing you can do with in-line C, but in a more sustainable manner. A vmod will typically have a few functions exposed to VCL, and the VCL just has to declare that it imports the vmod to use the functions without a single line of C-code in your VCL.
This also means that the vmod has its own build system, own linking process, flexible development environment and are much easier to share.
In the time to come, I expect us to have a community-site for vmods. I also expect that you will see a lot of minor yet important changes to Varnish during the Varnish 3.0-cycle that exposes more of the internal varnish utilities so vmods can use them.
Small disclaimer, though: There is no API guarantee. We don’t wish to slow the pace of Varnish-development by restricting what we can change. That said, we wont tear things apart just to see our vmod-contributors bleed.
I plan to write a blog post on vmod-hacking in the near future, so expect more detail there.
Varnish 1.0 was, as any 1.0-release is, important. I was not involved with the project back then, but as I understand it, Varnish 1 was very much tailored to a specific site, or type of site.
With Varnish 2.0, Varnish became useful for anyone with a high-traffic site. The 2.0-series was a good release-series, adding a healthy mixture of bug fixes and non-intrusive features with each release. But constantly focused on real-world usage. We also saw the first Varnish User Group meeting during that time.
Varnish 2.1 has been a sort of intermittent release. Director-refactoring, ESI and to a certain degree persistent storage paved the way for architectural changes that had to be done. Meanwhile, the user-base really exploded.
Now, with Varnish 3.0.0 coming out, we are already seeing how useful vmods are for Varnish Software-customers like Softonic, who’re sponsoring a VMOD to allow header-modification targeted at the Set-Cookie header (which can’t be treated like the RFC2616 specifies, due to how this has been implemented historically). Doing this in a vmod allows the VCL to remain clean. It also lets us share the code that isn’t site-specific but widely useful, since it is all contained in a header vmod(Still under development). Gzip also means there are no drawbacks to using ESI with Varnish. You don’t need to add a second service to compress data.
It all boils down to Varnish being a more useful part of your architecture. It’s easy to get fast and maintainable C-code in there if you need it, you can even pay someone to write just that bit for you. Without being confined to Varnish’ own road map and release cycle. There are no longer any downsides to using ESI. It’s fast. It’s free software. There are professional service and support offerings available. Varnish follow standards – unless you tell it not to. And so forth.
I’m not usually one to pat myself too much on the back, but as I’m writing this, I feel proud to be part of the team that gives you Varnish 3.0.
If you’re in Oslo, I’ll see you next Thursday!
March 16, 2011Posted by on
I was made aware of a synthetic benchmark that concerned Varnish today, and it looked rather suspicious. The services tested was Varnish, nginx, Apache and G-Wan. And G-Wan came out an order of magnitude faster than Varnish. This made me question the result. The first thing I noticed was AB, a tool I’ve long since given up trying to make behave properly. As there was no detailed data, I decided to give it a spin myself.
You will not find graphs. You will not find “this is best!”-quotes. I’m not even backing up my statements with httperf-output.
This is not a comparison of G-Wan versus Varnish. It is not complete. It is not even a vague attempt at making either G-Wan or Varnish perform better or worse. It is not realistic. Not complete and in no way a reflection on the overall functionality, usability or performance of G-Wan.
Why not? Because I would be stupid to publicize such things without directly consulting the developers of G-Wan so that the comparison would be fair. I am a Varnish-developer.
This is a text about stress testing. Not the result of stress testing. Nothing more.
The basic idea
So G-Wan was supposedly much faster than Varnish. The feature-set is also very narrow, as it goes about things differently. The test showed that Varnish, Apache and nginx were almost comparable in performance, whereas G-Wan was ridiculously much faster. The test was also conducted on a local machine (so no networking) and using AB. As I know that it’s hard to get nginx, Apache and Varnish to perform within the same level, this indicated that G-Wan did something differently that affected the test to me.
I installed g-wan and Varnish on a virtual machine and started playing with httperf.
What to test
The easiest number to demonstrate in a test is the maximum request rate. It tells you what the server can do under maximum load. However, it is also the hardest test to do precisely and fairly across daemons of vastly different nature.
Other things I have rarely written about is the response time of Varnish for average requests. This is often much more interesting to the end user, as your server isn’t going to be running at full capacity anyway. The fairness and concurrency is also highly relevant. A user doing a large download shouldn’t adversely affect other users.
I wasn’t going to bother with all that.
The first test I did was “max req/s”-like. It quickly showed that G-Wan was very fast, and in fact faster than Varnish. At first glance. The actual request-rate was faster. The CPU-usage was lower. However, Varnish is massively multi-threaded, which offsets the cpu measurements greatly and I wasn’t about to trust it.
Looking closer I realized that the real bottleneck was in fact httperf. With Varnish, it was able to keep more connections open and busy at the same time, and thus hit the upper limit of concurrency. This in turned gave subtle and easily ignored errors on the client which Varnish can do little about. It seemed G-Wan was dealing with fewer sessions at the same time, but faster, which gave httperf an easier time. This does not benefit G-Wan in the real world (nor does it necessarily detract from the performance), but it does create an unbalanced synthetic test.
I experimented with this quite a bit, and quickly concluded that the level of concurrency was much higher with varnish. But it was difficult to measure. Really difficult. Because I did not want to test httperf.
The hardware I used was my home-computer, which is ridiculously overpowered. The VM (KVM) was running with two CPU cores and I executed the clients from the host-OS instead of booting up physical test-servers. (… That 275k req/s that’s so much quoted? Spotify didn’t skip a beat while it was running (on the same machine). ;))
The more I tested this, the more I was able to produce any result I wanted by tweaking the level of concurrency, the degree of load, the amount of bandwidth required and so forth.
The response time of G-Wan seemed to deteriorate with load. But that might as well be the test environment. As the load went up, it took a long time to get a response. This is just not the case with Varnish at all. I ended up doing a little hoodwinking at the end to see how far this went, and the results varied extremely with tiny variations of test-parameters. The concurrency is a major factor. And the speed of Varnish at each individual connection played a huge part. At large amounts of parallel requests Varnish would be sufficiently fast with all the connections that httperf never ran into problems, while G-Wan would be more uneven and thus trigger failures (and look slower)…
My only conclusion is that it will take me several days to properly map out the performance patterns of Varnish compared to G-Wan. They treat concurrent connections vastly different and perform very different depending on the load-pattern you throw at them. Relating this to real traffic is very hard.
But this confirms my suspicion of the bogus-ness of the blog post that lead me to perform these tests. It’s not that I mind Varnish losing performance tests if we are actually slower, but it’s very hard to stomach when the nature of the test is so dubious. The art of measuring realistic performance with synthetic testing is not one that can be mastered in an afternoon.
(I think conclusions are supposed to be last, but never mind)
First: Be skeptical of unbalanced results. And of even results.
Second: Measure more than one factor. I’ve mainly focused on request-rate in my posts because I do not compare Varnish to anything but itself. Without a comparison it doesn’t make that much sense to provide reply latency (though I suppose I should start supplying a measure of concurrency, since that’s one of the huge strong-points of Varnish.).
Third: Conclude carefully. This is an extension of the first lesson.
A funny detail: While I read the license for the non-free G-Wan, which I always do for proprietary software, I was happy to see that it didn’t have a benchmark-clause (Oracle, anyone?). But it does forbid removing or modifying the Server:-header. It also forces me to give the G-Wan-guys permission to use my using of G-Wan in their marketing… Hmm — maybe I should … — err, never mind.
March 16, 2011Posted by on
I will be in Paris next week to participate in a seminar on Varnish at Capgemini’s premises. If you are in the area and interested in Varnish, take a look at https://www.varnish-software.com/paris. The nature of the event is informational for technical minds.
(This must be my shortest blog-post by far)