<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Sas91kA2iFU/V-hzvh_OmFI/AAAAAAAA5ik/4Huax5ef9loRHYFdWaXXdcKfoIFF3F0AQCLcB/s1600/Throughput%2Bnon-accumulated.PNG> Hey Erik,
You are absolutely correct! It was 500 rps. It's a typo. Very sorry! I'll fix it! To your other points, > At least for me, it took a long time to find out what the graphs were actually showing. In the first graph, maybe the title could be more descriptive, e.g. "Request latency at 300 rps". That sounds better! It's an accurate description. I appreciate the feedback. > The unit in the second graph is requests per minute, which is inconsistent since the first graph is requests per second. This also makes comparison difficult. Also, it doesn't actually show the requests per minute value unless you break out a calculator, since the X axis stops at 50 seconds. So is your request basically for me to give the slope on each one so that you can interpolate the results from one graph to the other? > Also, the lines in the second graph are suspiciously linear - how many measurements were made, at which points in time, what is the jitter? Just show the actual measurements as dots, then I can live with the straight line. That would also show any effects of the autothrottle algorithm. I'll have to regather that data. I had not logged every single response. I was aggregating the results every 5 seconds. I can resample this one. > Finally, I have a hard time understanding the latency values - the config shows 1 worker, so I'm assuming seial output. But for Gunicorn, the graph shows ~80.000 rpm which corresponds to a latency of 0,75ms, while the text says 6ms. Likewise, according to the graph, Redis has a latency of 1,7ms and IPC 6ms, which does not align with the text. Is this the effect of an async I/O behind the scenes, og are there multiple threads within the worker? I'm pressed to understand what you're trying to say. I'm not sure where you got the 80 (or is it 80 thousand?) rps from. If you're trying to sum the values of gunicorn through time, I guess that exposes something else that I either misrepresented or said incorrectly. The values presented are accumulated. Perhaps, that's not the correct way to present this. Try the below instead.: <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Sas91kA2iFU/V-hzvh_OmFI/AAAAAAAA5ik/4Huax5ef9loRHYFdWaXXdcKfoIFF3F0AQCLcB/s1600/Throughput%2Bnon-accumulated.PNG> Robert Roskam On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 9:50:18 AM UTC-4, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > > > > Den 13. sep. 2016 kl. 09.28 skrev Erik Cederstrand < > erik+...@cederstrand.dk <javascript:>>: > > > > First of all, thanks for taking the time to actually do the > measurements! It's insightful and very much appreciated. > > > > [...]300K requests in 10 minutes is 500 rps, but the text says 500 rps. > Which is it? > ^^^^^^^ > 300 rps > > Jeez, not even the email whining about inconsistencies can get the numbers > right :-) > > Erik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/ac741ad0-27f5-4909-a62f-2ef23f2757bf%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
