Show Contents List
You are here:
Benchmark Configuration
The following describes the benchmark configuration, unless otherwise noted below.
- AMI : LANSA Web Server 20150216-2103 (ami-992452a3).
- Windows Server 2012 R2 with all Windows updates applied.
- Multi AZ Auto Scaling Group .
- SQL Server Web 11.00.2100.60.v1, Single AZ.
- LANSA performance improvements in V14.
- Tested 12th March 2015 with a beta version of Visual LANSA V14.
- AWS Region ap-southeast-2 (Sydney), unless otherwise stated.
- Load test tool Loadster Workbench 3.5.6 running in 5 Regions - Virginia, Singapore, Ireland, Brazil, Sydney.
- Benchmark includes select, insert, update, and delete transactions with appropriate delays between transactions for each user.
- The Base Cost column provides indicative pricing. Only the EC2 instances and the RDS instance are included in the cost. There are other charges that are generally a small percentage of these costs which you will incur. You should monitor the costs closely to ensure it is within your budgetary constraints. RDS costs do not include data storage costs and, in particular, neither Provisioned IOPS increased charges. Autoscaling may also increase the number of web servers running to handle an increased load, further increasing the costs.
|
Concurrent Users
Web Servers (# EC2 Instances)
EC2 Instance Type (Max CPU %)
RDS Instance Type
SQL Server
Avg Response Time (seconds)
Max Response Time (Seconds)
Test #
Base Cost ($ per hour)
30
4
m3.medium (67%)
db.m3.medium
sqlserver-web
1.72
10.6
188
0.73
30
2
t2.micro (67%)
db.m3.medium
sqlserver-web
1.3
5.82
212
0.246
40
4
t2.micro (47%)
db.m3.medium
sqlserver-web
1.56
6.65
214
0.282
40
4
t2.small (47%)
db.m3.medium
sqlserver-web
1.58
6.81
285
0.354
80 (Single AZ)
10
m3.medium (75%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.45
7.66
166b
1.72
80
10
m3.medium (77%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.75 (20% slower than single-AZ)
6.86
185
1.72
80
5
t2.micro (79%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.45
5.59
221
0.51
80
3
t2.medium (67%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.5
122.11
226
0.636
80
4
m3.large (65%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.15
4.93
238
1.456
80 (Single AZ)
10 (Virginia)
m3.medium (85%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.34
14.67
197
1.72
80 (Single AZ)
10 (Sao Paulo)
m3.medium (78%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.1
3.9
206
1.72
80 (Single AZ)
10 (Tokyo)
m3.medium (60%)
db.m3.large
sqlserver-web
1.3
6.16
207
1.72
100
8
m3.medium (90%)
db.m3.xlarge
sqlserver-web
1.9
11.47
151
1.88
600
60
m3.medium (77%)
db.m3.2xlarge
sqlserver-web
1.85
7.75
160b
9.48
100
10
m3.medium (80%)
db.r3.xlarge
sqlserver-web
1.5
7.2
158
2.18
300
30
m3.medium (70%)
db.r3.xlarge
sqlserver-web
2.1
7.59
164
4.78
300
10
t2.medium (55%)
db.r3.xlarge
sqlserver-web
2.05
7.08
233
1.6
300
10 (PIOPS 2000)
t2.medium (58%)
db.r3.xlarge
sqlserver-web
1.84 (10% improvement)
7.02
261
1.6
500
60
m3.medium (73%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
1.65
7.5
175
10.82
500
15
t2.medium (75%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
1.1
5.48
232
4.1
500
10
m3.xlarge (82%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
1.2
5.08
242
8.2
500
90
m3.medium (56%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
1.5
7.63
177
14.72
600
60
m3.medium (72%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
2
8.24
173
10.82
750
90
m3.medium (56%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
3.25
14.32
170
14.72
750
18
t2.medium (68%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
2.3
9.02
236
4.316
750
18 (PIOPS 1000)
t2.medium (73%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-web
2.1 (10% improvement)
9.28
266
3.096
900
120
m3.medium (38%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
4.75
21.57
167
18.62
900
30
t2.medium (40%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
3.5
11.67
234
5.18
900
20
m3.xlarge (37%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
3.4
12.29
241
13.38
900
10
m3.2xlarge (38%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
3.45
19.47
245
13.38
900
10
c3.2xlarge (31%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
3.45
15.98
246
10.54
900
10
c4.2xlarge (25%)
db.r3.2xlarge
sqlserver-se
3.45
17.41
247
10.75
Note that little difference was seen between db.m3.large and db.m3.xlarge for the benchmark. So this would indicate that it's not worth spending extra for db.m3.xlarge. It is unclear as to why this is so and why moving from db.m3.large to db.m3.2xlarge, which is 4 times the price yet gives 6 times the performance. If the instance types are compared, apart from doubling CPU and memory for each step, db.m3.2xlarge has High network performance. So it seems that this is the factor which allows the dramatic improvement in throughput for db.m3.2xlarge. Of course this comment is purely in the context of this benchmark. Another application may experience different behavior.
Show Contents List