Bug 456371 - httpd unable to handle ab -n 1500000 -c 500
httpd unable to handle ab -n 1500000 -c 500
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: httpd (Show other bugs)
4.6
i386 Linux
low Severity low
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Joe Orton
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-23 03:45 EDT by CAI Qian
Modified: 2008-07-24 06:56 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-24 06:56:04 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description CAI Qian 2008-07-23 03:45:44 EDT
Description of problem:
On nec-em9.rhts.bos.redhat.com (i386), ran

# ab -t 7200 -n 1500000 -c 500 -e load_test_proper.csv
http://nec-em23.rhts.bos.redhat.com/error/noindex.html

This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.41-dev <$Revision: 1.141 $> apache-2.0
Copyright (c) 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Copyright (c) 1998-2002 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/

Benchmarking nec-em23.rhts.bos.redhat.com (be patient)
Completed 500000 requests
Completed 1000000 requests
apr_recv: Connection reset by peer (104)
Total of 1140857 requests completed

Changed the command to -c 300 worked without any problem. I have seen this
problem on i386 only so far.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Both client and server were RHEL4-U6 GA distros.
httpd-2.0.52-38.ent
httpd-suexec-2.0.52-38.ent
kernel-2.6.9-67.EL

How reproducible:
Always
Comment 1 Joe Orton 2008-07-23 05:02:18 EDT
Were you using the default httpd.conf?  That has:

MaxClients       256

so it is unsurprising that you see ab errors for concurrency of 500.
Comment 2 CAI Qian 2008-07-23 05:39:34 EDT
Yes, I was using that default setting.
Comment 3 Joe Orton 2008-07-24 06:56:04 EDT
This is not entirely surprising behaviour then.  Use a smaller concurrency
setting or increase MaxClients and ServerLimit.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.