Re:Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Pr...
by TallGuyShort on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @10:19AM
(#5518165)
+1 to your second paragraph. I've previously carried out what I considered a pretty fair benchmark: real hardware, realistic server setup, well-informed configuration of both nginx and haproxy, etc... HAProxy had significantly bettter performance in my results. Not questioning their results, just surprised.
Re:Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Pr...
by V1 on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @01:23PM
(#5519579)
I'll be more then happy to see if my configurations can be tweaked. And I was surprised as well, but it seems that it always boils down to the configuration files a small change can sometimes yield great results as seen with a specifying ciphers for SSL.
Re:Balancer Battle – Load testing HAproxy, Nginx and HTTP-Pr...
by ominous_prime on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @01:44PM
(#5519724)
Like I said, running as a simple reverse-proxy, they should be pretty close. The added latency is really the differentiator when going to a single backend, and that's about all you're measuring. You're control itself is still <400rps.
Now add dozens of backend servers, and start throwing a couple orders of magnitude more traffic at it, and the differences will really start to show.
Please note: I'm not saying your numbers aren't useful. Many people will be using a setup like this, and would like to know what the differences would be, if any.
I haven't worked on these in a couple years, but on real hardware, haproxy could push much more bandwidth. We could saturate 10Gb ethernet fairly easily at the time, which wasn't possible at all with nginx.