skip to main content
10.1145/378420.378790acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmetricsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

The effects of wide-area conditions on WWW server performance

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 June 2001Publication History

ABSTRACT

WWW workload generators are used to evaluate web server performance, and thus have a large impact on what performance optimizations are applied to servers. However, current benchmarks ignore a crucial component: how these servers perform in the environment in which they are intended to be used, namely the wide-area Internet.This paper shows how WAN conditions can affect WWW server performance. We examine these effects using an experimental test-bed which emulates WAN characteristics in a live setting, by introducing factors such as delay and packet loss in a controlled and reproducible fashion. We study how these factors interact with the host TCP implementation and what influence they have on web server performance. We demonstrate that when more realistic wide-area conditions are introduced, servers exhibit very different performance properties and scaling behaviors, which are not exposed by existing benchmarks running on LANs. We show that observed throughputs can give misleading information about server performance, and thus find that maximum throughput, or capacity, is a more useful metric. We find that packet losses can reduce server capacity by as much as 50 percent and increase response time as seen by the client. We show that using TCP SACK can reduce client response time, without reducing server capacity.

References

  1. 1.Mark Allman. A Web server's view of the transport layer. Computer Communication Review, 30(5), Oct 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.Martin F. Arlitt and Carey L. Williamson. Internet Web servers: Workload characterization and performance implications. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(5):631-646, Oct 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.Mohit Aron and Peter Druschel. TCP implementation enhancements for improving Webserver performance. Technical Report TR99-335, Rice University Computer Science Dept., July 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.Gaurav Banga and Peter Druschel. Measuring the capacity of a Web server under realistic loads. World Wide Web Journal (Special Issue on World Wide Web Characterization and Performance Evaluation), 2(1):69-83, May 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Gaurav Banga and Jeffrey C. Mogul. Scalable kernel performance for Internet servers under realistic loads. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.Paul Barford. Modeling, Measurement and Performance of World Wide Web Transactions. PhD thesis, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, January 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.Paul Barford and Mark Crovella. Generating representative Web workloads for network and server performance evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACM Sigmetrics Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, Madison, WI, June 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.Paul Barford and Mark Crovella. Critical path analysis of TCP transactions. In ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols, Stockhold, Sweden, August 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.Mark Carson. NIST Net. Available at http://www.antd.nist.gov/nistnet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SpecWeb96/SpecWeb99. http://www.spec.org/osg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.Mark Crovella and Azer Bestavros. Self-similarity in World Wide Web traffic: Evidence and possible causes. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(6):835-846, Nov 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12.Jay L. Devore. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences (2nd Ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.Sally Floyd and Kevin Fall. Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, 7(4), August 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.Sally Floyd and Tom Henderson. The NewReno modification to TCP's fast recovery algorithm. In Network Information Center RFC 2582 (Experimental), April 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.James C. Hu, Irfan Pyarali, and Douglas C. Schmidt. Measuring the impact of event dispatching and concurrency models on Web server performance over high-speed networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd Global Internet Conference (held as part of GLOBECOM '97), Phoenix, AZ, Nov 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 16.Raj Jain. The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.T. V. Lakshman and U. Madhow. The performance of TCP/IP for networks with high bandwidth-delay products and random loss. IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, 5(3), 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.Matthew Mathis, Jamshid Mahdavi, Sally Floyd, and Allyn Romanow. TCP selective acknowledgment options. In Network Information Center RFC 2018, October 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.Jeffrey C. Mogul. Network behavior of a busy Web server and its clients. Technical Report 95/5, Digital Equipment Corporation Western Research Lab, Palo Alto, CA, October 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.Erich M. Nahum, Tsipora Barzilai, and Dilip Kandlur. Performance issues in WWW servers (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the ACM Sigmetrics Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, Atlanta, GA, May 1999. An extended version has been accepted to appear in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.Netcraft. The Netcraft WWW server survey. Available at http://www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.Jitendra Padhye, Victor Firoiu, Don Towsley, and Jim Kurose. Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation. In ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols, September 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23.Jitendra Padhye and Sally Floyd. Identifying the TCP behavior of Web servers. ICSI Tech Report 01-002, February 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.Vivek Pai, Peter Druschel, and Willy Zwaenepoel. Flash: An efficient and portable Web server. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Monterey, CA, June 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25.Vivek S. Pai, Peter Druschel, and Willy Zwaenepoel. I/O Lite: A copy-free UNIX I/O system. In 3rd USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, New Orleans, LA, February 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.Vern Paxson. End-to-end Internet packet dynamics. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 7(3), June 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 27.Luigi Rizzo. Issues in the implementation of selective acknowledgements for TCP. Draft report. Information available at http://info.iet.unipi.it/luigi/sack.html, Jan 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.Luigi Rizzo. Dummynet: A simple approach to the evaluation of network protocols. Computer Communication Review, 27(2), Feb 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. 29.Dan Rubenstein, Jim Kurose, and Don Towsley. Detecting shared congestion of flows via end-to-end measurement. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS 2000, Santa Clara, CA, June 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 30.Srinivasan Seshan, Hari Balakrishnan, Venkata N. Padmanabhan, Mark Stemm, and Randy Katz. TCP behavior of a busy Internet server: Analysis and improvements. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Communications (IEEE Infocom), San Francisco, CA, March 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.W. Richard Stevens. Re: cleaning up TIME WAIT states. In End-to-end mailing list archives, January 1997. Available at http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.Maya Yajnik, Sue B. Moon, Jim Kurose, and Don Towsley. Measurement and modelling of the temporal dependence in packet loss. In Proceedings of 1999 IEEE INFOCOM, New York, NY, March 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. The effects of wide-area conditions on WWW server performance

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGMETRICS '01: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems
          June 2001
          347 pages
          ISBN:1581133340
          DOI:10.1145/378420
          • Chairman:
          • Mary Vernon

          Copyright © 2001 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 June 2001

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          SIGMETRICS '01 Paper Acceptance Rate29of233submissions,12%Overall Acceptance Rate459of2,691submissions,17%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader