Comparing the performance of web server architectures

  • Authors:

  • David Pariag;Tim Brecht;Ashif Harji;Peter Buhr;Amol Shukla;David R. Cheriton

  • Affiliations:

  • University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

  • Venue:
  • Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2007
  • Year:
  • 2007

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper, we extensively tune and then compare the performance of web servers based on three different server architectures. The μserver utilizes an event-driven architecture, Knot uses the highly-efficient Capriccio thread library to implement a thread-per-connection model, and WatPipe uses a hybrid of events and threads to implement a pipeline-based server that is similar in spirit to a staged event-driven architecture (SEDA) server like Haboob. We describe modifications made to the Capriccio thread library to use Linux's zero-copy sendfile interface. We then introduce the SY mmetric Multi-Processor Event Driven (SYMPED) architecture in which relatively minor modifications are made to a single process event-driven (SPED) server (the μserver) to allow it to continue processing requests in the presence of blocking due to disk accesses. Finally, we describe our C++ implementation of WatPipe, which although utilizing a pipeline-based architecture, excludes the dynamic controls over event queues and thread pools used in SEDA. When comparing the performance of these three server architectures on the workload used in our study, we arrive at different conclusions than previous studies. In spite of recent improvements to threading libraries and our further improvements to Capriccio and Knot, both the event-based μserver and pipeline-based Wat-Pipe server provide better throughput (by about 18%). We also observe that when using blocking sockets to send data to clients, the performance obtained with some architectures is quite good and in one case is noticeably better than when using non-blocking sockets.