As is evident from the table below, mod_python 3.5 (in pre-release testing as of this writing) is currently the fastest tool when it comes to running Python in your web server, and second-fastest as a WSGI container.
|Server||Version||Req/s||% of httpd static||Notes|
|nxweb static file||3.2.0-dev||512,767||347.1 %||“memcache”:false. (626,270 if true)|
|nginx static file||1.0.15||430,135||291.1 %||stock CentOS 6.3 rpm|
|httpd static file||2.4.4, mpm_event||147,746||100.0 %|
|mod_python handler||3.5, Python 2.7.5||125,139||84.7 %|
|uWSGI||188.8.131.52||119,175||80.7 %||-p 16 –threads 1|
|mod_python wsgi||3.5, Python 2.7.5||87,304||59.1 %|
|mod_wsgi||3.4||76,251||51.6 %||embedded mode|
|nxweb wsgi||3.2.0-dev, Python 2.7.5||15,141||10.2 %||posibly misconfigured?|
The point of this test
I wanted to see how mod_python compares to other tools of similar purpose on high-end hardware and with relatively high concurrency. As I’ve written before you’d be foolish to base your platform decision on these numbers because speed in this case matters very little. So the point of this is just make sure that mod_python is in the ballpark with the rest and that there isn’t anything seriously wrong with it. And surprisingly, mod_python is actually pretty fast, fastest, even, though in its own category (a raw mod_python handler).
The server is a 24-core Intel Xeon 3GHz with 64GB RAM, running Linux 2.6.32 (CentOS 6.3).
Concurrency of 120 was chosen as the highest number I could run across all setups without getting strange errors. “Strange errors” could be disconnects, delays and stuck connections, all tunable by anything from Linux kernel configuration to specific tool configs. I very much wanted concurrency to be at least a few times higher but it quickly became apparent that getting to that level would require very significant system tweaking for which I just didn’t have the time. 120 concurrent requests is nothing to sneeze at though: if you sustained this rate for a day of python handler serving, you’d have processed 10,812,009,600 requests (on a single server!).
I should also note that in my tweaking of various configurations I couldn’t get the requests/s numbers any significantly higher than what you see above. Increasing concurrency and number of workers mostly increased errors rather than r/s, which is also interesting because it’s important how gracefuly each of these tools fails, but failure mode is a whole different subject.
The tests were done via the loopback (127.0.0.1) because having tried hitting the server from outside it became apparent that the network was the bottleneck.
Keepalives were in use (-k), which means that all of the 5 million requests are processed over only about fifty thousand TCP connections. Without keepalives this would be more of the Linux kernel test because the bulk of the work establishing and taking down a connection happens in the kernel.
Before running the 5 million requests I ran 100,000 as a “warm up”.
This post does not include the actual code for the WSGI app and mod_python handlers because it was same as in my last post on mod_python performance testing.
ab simply can’t run more than about 150K requests per second, so it couldn’t adequately test nxweb and nginx static file serving.
weighttp seemed good, but somehow got stuck on idle but not yet closed connections which affected the request/s negatively.
httpress claimed that it “promptly timeouts stucked connections, forces all hanging connections to close after the main run, does not allow hanging or interrupted connections to affect the measurement”, which is just what I needed. And it worked really great too.
The choice of contenders
mod_python and mod_wsgi are the obvious choices, uWSGI/Nginx combo is known as a low-resource and fast alternative. I came across nxweb while looking at httpress (it’s written by the same person (Yaroslav Stavnichiy), it looks to be the fastest (open source) web server currently out there, faster than (closed source) G-WAN, even.
Specific tool notes
The code used for testing and the configs were essentially same as what I used in my previous post on mod_python performance testing. The key differences are listed below.
The key config on Apache was:
1 2 3
MinSpareThreads ensures that Apache starts all possible processes and threads on startup (25 * 16 = 400) so that there is no ramp up period and it’s tsunami-ready right away.
The comparison with uWSGI isn’t entriely appropriate because it was running listening on a unix domain socket behind Nginx. The -p 16 –threads 1 (16 worker processes with a single thread each) was chosen as the best performing option after some experimentation. Upping -p to 32 reduced r/s to 86233, 64 to 47296. Upping –threads to 2 (with 16 workers) reduced r/s to 55925 (by half, which is weird - mod_python has no problems with 25 threads). –single-interpreter didn’t seem to have any significant impact.
The actual uWSGI command was:
A note on the uWSGI performance. Initially it seemed to be outperforming the mod_python handler by nearly a factor of two. Then after all kinds of puzzled head-scratching, I decided to verify that every hit ran my Python code - I did this by writing a dot to a file and making sure that the file size matches the number of hits in the end. It turned out that about one third of the requests from Nginx to uWSGI were erroring out, but httpress didn’t see them as errors. So if you’re going to attempt to replicate this, watch out for this condition. EDIT: Thanks to uWSGI’s author Roberto De Loris’ help, it turned out that this was a result of misconfiguration on my part - the -l parameter should be set higher than 120. (This explains how I arrived at 120 as the concurrency chosen for the test too). The request/s number and uWSGI’s position in my table is still correct.
The relevant parts of the nginx config were (Note: this is not the complete config for brevity):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Mod_python is plenty fast. Considering that unlike with other contenders large parts of the code are written in Python and thus are readable and debuggable by not just C programmers, it’s quite a feat.
I was surprised by Apache’s slow static file serving compared to Nginx and Nxweb (the latter, although still young and in development seems like a very cool web server).
On the other hand I am not all that convinced that the Nginx/uWSGI set up is as cool as it is touted everywhere. Unquestionably Nginx is a super solid server and Apache has some catching up to do when it comes to acting as a static file server or a reverse proxy. But when it comes to serving Python-generated content, my money would be on Apache rather than uWSGI. The “low” 120 concurrency level for this test was largely chosen because of uWSGI (Apache started going haywire on me at about 400+ concurrent connections). EDIT: Thanks to Roberto’s comment, this turned out to be an error on my part (see comments). uWSGI can handle higher concurrencies if -l is set higher.
It’s also interesting that on my laptop a mod_python handler outperformed the Apache static file, but it wasn’t the case on the big server.
I didn’t do Python 3 testing, it would be interesting to see how much difference it makes as well.
I realize this post may be missing key config data - I had to leave out a lot because of time contraints (and my lazyness) - so if you see any obvious gaps, please comment, I will try to address them.
P.S. Did I mention mod_python 3.5 supports Python 3? Please help me test it!