<div dir="ltr">Hmm..<br><br>"Our tool" .. What tool is this? Something you built yourselves? Commercial offering perhaps?<br><br>I've done performance testing, load testing and all osrts of other types of testing. You say you have figures showing something, but you seem unsure why the figures tell you waht they do. Then either you've got the wrong figures, or not understanding what they actually tell you. More than likely you have the wrong figures. Have you gotten data points for *all* involved parts? Not just CPU, but network, for all involved systems?<br>
<br>What you probably percieve as a "problem" on the server side is one of 3 things:<br><br>A/ Your clients simply cannot produce more traffic to make the server break a sweat. My money lies here.<br>B/ You've saturated the network between clients and server. Unlikely without causing other side effects.<br>
C/ You're using a database type backend (SQL or LDAP) and it is not keeping up.<br><br>Without knowing what your setup is, what tools you're using, how those tools are configured, how your clients and RADIUS (FreeRADIUS of course) server is configured and what the claimed figures are, what level of help would you concieve we could bring you?<br>
<br>Facts speak louder than anything. So far those facts are elusive. Shows us your data, while also expecting that if you're using a commercial tool (potentially written by yourselves) that vendor should be involved. If the volume of data you're willing to present is fairly large, I'd opt myself to add it to a web site somewhere and just present a link to the mailing list.<br>
<br>CPU utilization is not the sole metric. Performance testing is usually aroun the same level as statistics, lawyers etc. It'll only show you one part of "reality", usually a fabricated one which only works within certain set parameters. Change one parameter and all your performance testing is null and void.<br>
<br>Also note, one protocol behaves one way, another protocol behaves another way. "Success" is measured differently depending on goal at hand.<br><br>//anders<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/8/20 Kevin J <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevinsmailer@yahoo.com">kevinsmailer@yahoo.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
Well, Radius protocol is not just machine-to-machine issue. I think you don't understand how request protocol can be simulated by hammering with our tool. We have tested various protocols by this tool.<br><br>Per our test results, radius can reach the limit of requests by hammering easily but CPU was still low. We have various statistics on all these. My point is that radius was not able to use full cpu resource until reaching max number of handful requests.<br>
<br>Your point with more clients does not make sense because we already reached max reqeusts hammering by our tool and that was same regardless of adding more clients under multi-threaded enviroment.<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Anders Holm <<a href="mailto:anders.holm@sysadmin.ie" target="_blank">anders.holm@sysadmin.ie</a>><br>To: FreeRadius users mailing list <<a href="mailto:freeradius-users@lists.freeradius.org" target="_blank">freeradius-users@lists.freeradius.org</a>><br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:52:20 PM<br>Subject: Re: performance report?<br><br> <font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I still do ...<br><br>
I've had 10 multi core boxes hammering one server, still not enough .. You need more clients .. ;) RADIUS as such requires very little from the server side in terms of CPU. All it really does is compare x with y and then respond yes or no, once you strip down all the various variants of auth protocols. That's not a high requirement. I'm confident if you use a SSL enabled protocol, your CPU on the server is spending more time per request doing the necessary SSL stuff than RADIUS related work ..<br>
<br>
A pint of unspecified beverage says you'll need more client CPU .. I'll agree with the pint ..<br><br>
//anders<br><br><br>
On 20/08/2008 20:45, "Kevin J" <<a rel="nofollow">kevinsmailer@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></span></font><blockquote><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Well, that's why I am saying we used the nas simulation tool. We can hammer a lot of traffic with this multi-threaded tool and also we tried at least three client boxes so don't assume our traffic was not enough.<br>
<br></span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>
From: Anders Holm <<a rel="nofollow">anders.holm@sysadmin.ie</a>><br>
To: FreeRadius users mailing list <<a rel="nofollow">freeradius-users@lists.freeradius.org</a>><br>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:25:19 PM<br>
Subject: Re: performance report?<br><br>
Re: performance report? </span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">It is not likely your actually putting too much strain on the server side. You'll need quite a lot of machines hammering the RADIUS server before it'll break into a sweat. The client side would have higher CPU utilization then the server side, per request.<br>
<br>
Comparing one program to another is not exactly comparing apples with apples. It's more like comparing a duck with a fork lift. One flies, the other just doesn't (or rather, when it does, you don't want to be there to see it) ...<br>
<br>
//anders<br><br>
On 20/08/2008 20:18, "Kevin J" <<a rel="nofollow">kevinsmailer@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></span></font><blockquote><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Does anybody know the performance on Sun T-1000?<br>
Just noticed that radius cannot reach more than 20% CPU time when we ran a heavy traffic with nas simulations. We have tested some other programs and could reach even more than 90% so just curious anybody experienced the similar result.<br>
<br><br></span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br><hr align="center" size="3" width="95%"></span></font><font size="2"><font face="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">-<br>
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html" target="_blank">http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html</a><br></span></font></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br><hr align="center" size="3" width="95%"></span></font><font size="2"><font face="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">-<br>
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html" target="_blank">http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html</a><br></span></font></font></blockquote></div></div></div>
</div><br>
</div><br>-<br>
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See <a href="http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html" target="_blank">http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>