Many thanks to all those who participated in the discussion in the previous post. All comments, criticisms and compliments are welcome. This is what motivates me to keep writing this blog.
The repercussion of the previous post was much bigger than I expected. The Embarcadero team corrected some of the DataSnap problems and therefore I decided to redo these tests and create this new post.
This post is a continuation of DataSnap analysis based on Speed & Stability tests, if you haven’t read the previous post, please do it before you go ahead.
To be honest, I surprised myself at the reaction of Embarcadero. I really thought they would inundate me with criticism and would do nothing. I expected some of those unfounded answers that sometimes I receive. I thought nothing would happen, no fix or solution.
Actually I received some criticism during the Embarcadero Webinar presented by David I. and Marco Cantù. Someone questioned them about my tests and both spoke I wanted a better wizard with more options and that allowed me to configure everything without writing a line of code. It was a totally distorted view of my post. I only used the Wizard to avoid claims that the problem was in my implementation and not in the framework. I don’t like wizards and Embarcadero don’t need to create better or fancy ones. All I want is that the framework works and has a decent documentation.
After all they understood that it wasn’t a Wizard problem and a lazy programmer, but instead a real problem in the framework. After some discussion they realized the problem and then worked to correct.
Surely there was a pressure from the community over the Embarcadero team, claiming the quality they promise in their products. The participation of many people of the Delphi community influenced on the speed at which Embarcadero worked on this problem. I don’t think it should be that way. If I’m with a problem and I present it to Embarcadero, by e-mail or QC, they should look at it the same way. Why is it necessary for the Delphi community to press them for a fix on a bug?
The impression I have, evaluating the comments of David I. and Marco Cantù is that this response we’ve had from Embarcadero is mainly due to the commitment of Marco Cantù. Less than 2 hours after sending the email asking him to look at the blog I got feedback and since then he speaks with me daily to try to solve these problems. Thank you Marco and congratulations for the work you are doing. I really hope you can influence other employees of Embarcadero, maybe this way we’ll have a better feedback without needing to post an article on a blog.
For those who didn’t follow the comments of the previous post I will give a brief summary of what happened. A few days after posting my article, Marco Cantú wrote an article on his blog talking about optimizations that can be performed in DataSnap servers to improve performance and stability. He also conducted a webinar talking a bit about it. What happened is that I applied all the optimizations that were suggested and the problem persisted. Marco also realized this and has allocated a team to work on it and try to find the problems. After some time Embarcadero released XE3 Update 1 with a series of fixes for DataSnap. In this article I will present the tests I did with this new version and an analysis of the results.
I received some criticism concerning the Datasnap server I used . In general they criticized the fact I didn’t apply an optimization or because I didn’t use ISAPI, for example. Thank you for the constructive criticism, it helped me a lot.
I agree that the way the server was developed wasn’t ideal to test the performance of the framework. Maybe I haven’t noticed it because my focus was to show the stability problems of the framework, not so much the performance problem. Anyway, I applied these optimizations and redid the tests, which I will introduce below.
My main argument with respect to these critics is that the DataSnap server should at least work, even without any optimizations. It wouldn’t be as fast as it could be, but at least shouldn’t crash. I keep thinking that way. The truth is that the framework was not built to be scalable. There is no enough optimizations to make it to work in environments with a lot of concurrency.
I will make a brief description of the optimizations proposed by the community and Embarcadero.
Michael Justin noticed a mistake I made on the DataSnap server. Thank you Michael. All servers should use Keep-Alive. What I didn’t know was that the DataSnap Server had a setting for this and that was disabled by default. Thus, the DataSnap test was the only one who didn’t use Keep-Alive.
Theoretically it would be an interesting optimization, particularly for the test case presented, where many calls are made to the server. But I found a problem related to it. By enabling the Keep-Alive on server, the performance drops absurdly (5 requests / second). This occurs only with the testing server and client on different machines. On a local test it works perfectly. I have informed this problem to Marco Cantù and he would further evaluate it.
With that, I was forced to disable Keep-Alive, so all tests with DataSnap are without the Keep-Alive option. It would be unfair to turn this feature off on other servers because they have the capability and it works perfectly. I also don’t have enough time to redo the tests of all servers.
One of the issues that I observed was related to memory consumption. Why Datasnap server consumes so much memory if the method called does absolutely nothing?
Maybe I don’t know how to explain exactly but i will try. Basically the DataSnap creates a session for each HTTP connection that it receives. This session will be destroyed after 20 minutes, in other words, on the first 20 minutes of the test the memory consumption will only go up, after that it has the tendency of stabilize itself. I really have no idea why Datasnap does this. In a REST application I don’t see much sense in these sessions with a default configuration. Of course, sessions can be helpful, but i can’t understand why it’s a default configuration. Indeed, DataSnap doesn’t have a configuration for that. It appears like you just have to use this session control, without being able to choose otherwise (There is no documentation). The MORMot framework has a session control too but it’s configurable and doesn’t consumes so much memory.
Anyway, there is a way around this problem. Daniele Teti wrote an article on his blog, take a look. The solution that I will show here was placed by him on his blog. Thanks Daniele.
uses System.StrUtils, DataSnap.DSSession, Data.DBXPlatform;
function TServerMethods1.HelloWorld: String;
Result := 'Hello World';
GetInvocationMetaData.CloseSession := True;
After running this method the session will close and memory consumption will be lower. Of course still exists an overhead for creating and destroying this session.
Ondrej Kelle alerted me to use a thread pool. Thank you Ondrej. I really didn’t know that.
All servers were using thread pool except Datasnap. Marco Cantù put more information on his blog about how to implement this thread pool on DataSnap. Implementing a thread pool should avoid all overhead on creating and destroying Indy threads I talked about on the first post.
I received severe criticism for doing a test without using ISAPI. I was worried when I read these critics, especially coming from renowned and experienced people.
I don’t want to justify, instead I want to explain why I haven’t used ISAPI. As you know, I don’t have much experience with servers, I’m starting to work with it now. Practically every opinion I have comes from information I extracted from the internet, books, etc. I’ve never worked effectively with ISAPI. I’ve already configured IIS a few times and did some tests but I never worked with anything in production using ISAPI. In almost every lecture I attended on DataSnap (This includes Delphi Conference 2011 and 2012 and Webinars) was placed as an advantage of DataSnap that it doesn’t need to use IIS to run the server. The “experts” reported problems, difficulties, etc.. For me it was clear (perhaps wrongly) that not using IIS was a great advantage. Because of this I had not cogitated the possibility of using ISAPI. Despite this, when the server started to fail I created an ISAPI server to test and the problem also occurred.
To add a bit more information to my study I included a ISAPI server on the tests that I will present in this post.
The new tests
The tests were conducted in the same environment of previous tests using the same methodology. Three additional servers were added as well.
- A server using the same sources of the first version, but compiled using XE3 Update1. No optimizations.
- A VCL server rather than Console (Suggestion from Marco Cantù) with all improvements suggested by the community and Embarcadero.
- A ISAPI server
I sent VCL server codes for Marco before taking the tests. Unfortunately he didn’t have enough time to evaluate carefully but he told me it seemed like a good implementation.
The servers were added to the folder on github.
NOTE: I didn’t find a way to measure the ISAPI server memory consumption, I believe that it couldn’t be done since the operation is quite different. Therefore it does not appear in the graphics memory consumption. If someone with more experience have any ideas, feel free to comment.
Pierre Yager suggested I perform tests in Delphi on Rails framework. I did some quick tests and the framework looks promising. Certainly has more performance than the DataSnap. Pierre, unfortunately I didn’t have time to perform all tests with this framework. Anyway I think that is a valid alternative and who is looking for options should certainly evaluate this framework as well. Thank you.
Tests without concurrency
The methodology hasn’t changed. In these tests we used only one thread making calls to the server, without any concurrency.
In this test, regarding the performance, showed no significant change. The update provided by Embarcadero in nothing has changed in this aspect (and this was not the purpose of the update). The optimizations also had no effect.
Maybe the optimization that could help in this test is the Keep-Alive that malfunctioned, as explained above.
Let’s take a look at the memory consumption.
We had changes in memory consumption. Although the graph shows a slightly lower consumption between versions XE3 and XE3 Update 1 I do not believe that Embarcadero has made any changes in this regard. Especially because we don’t see the same behavior on the test with 1 million requests. The memory consumption of DataSnap servers are simply unpredictable and unstable.
The optimizations have a big effect here. The code proposed by Daniele Teti was effective and memory consumption dropped significantly.
Tests with concurrency
In these tests do we not have data for DataSnap server (Console) compiled with XE3 (pre-update1) because it didn’t run these tests as explained in the first post.
The performance of all DataSnap servers in the tests with concurrency was mediocre. Thanks to XE3 Update 1 at least the server did not crash. You may notice that the server without optimization appears to have superior performance to others, but we have to evaluate this carefully, because a new variable needs to be exposed. Something I had not checked in any of the other tests appeared now. It comes to the amount of requests rejected by the server, or simply unanswered.
The chart above shows the error rates in the test with a hundred threads (Unfortunately I do not have the rates of the test with 50 threads because I did not realize that during these tests. Rates of errors with 50 threads should be smaller).
All DataSnap servers showed very high error rates, ranging from 61% to 97%. Among the servers that had errors (Only DataSnap), the one with the lowest error rate was ISAPI with 61.48%.
The memory consumption of the DataSnap server without optimizations is quite high. With the optimizations it is much smaller. Still showed a significant and disturbing consumption in the second test. I do not know where this consumption comes as sessions are being destroyed. I believe it is memory leaks.
I could not monitor all the tests in real time simply because the tests take too long. Some tests took more than 10 hours and were running overnight. I took a week to complete all these tests because of this slowness.
In some moments I monitored the tests and incidentally I noticed a very strange behavior. In this case, the VCL server compiled with the XE3 Update 1 with optimizations running test in 100 threads.
In these pictures you can see the memory consumption varies a lot and a extremely high peak in I/O . The I/O was stable at 22.3KB and suddenly jumps to 464.5 KB, after a while it stabilizes again. At the same time the server was running with 1153 threads. An absurd amount. I got to catch more than 1450 threads running during this test. Where does it come from?
I have no theory to explain this behavior. Theoretically the overhead of Indy threads should no longer exist, since I am using a thread pool. I leave it in the hands of experts.
Another very strange behavior I noticed in the test with only one thread. I spent a long time researching but have not found the reason. Some softwares interfere with DataSnap server speed . I identified two, Google Chrome and EyeBeam (VOIP). The strange thing is that they cause the server to become much faster. The difference amounts to more than four times in some cases. In other words, the DataSnap server is four times faster with the EyeBeam running.
With Google Chrome the difference varies. As you use the browser DataSnap suffers a change in performance, but if you leave the browser idle it has no effect.
Obviously all these tests were done without interference. I think it would be interesting that Embarcadero investigate this. Probably they can find a way to optimize the DataSnap server without major changes. After all, if a third party software can do it, should not be so difficult to implement internally.
I have not noticed this interference in other servers.
With the adjustment made by Embarcadero in XE3 Update 1 I could finish the tests and introduce some new elements to the study. Now we can see more clearly how far we can go with DataSnap. For me it became even clearer that the DataSnap is an option only for small projects or small requirements. Even using ISAPI I did not get satisfactory results in this environment.
Marco Cantù made it clear to me that the Update 1 includes some fixes for the problems and that it was not any major restructuring. He also made it clear that after this update the server is more stable and able to work with a slightly larger amount of connections, but we can not expect it to work in environments with a large concurrency, which is my case and the test case presented here. Marco said that to improve these problems would require a complete redesign of the framework and they are thinking about this possibility. I hope Embarcadero actually invest a little more in DataSnap. Maybe it becomes the product they are selling.
My final critic is for Embarcadero policy updates that is the target of much criticism around the world. All users of the previous versions of DataSnap XE3 just have to live with these problems and it has been like this for years. Embarcadero simply forces companies to buy a new product to gain access for a bug correction. As an analogy, you buy a car and it comes with an engine problem, instead of the manufacturer giving you maintenance, replace the engine or something, they correct the problem in a new model and forces you to buy the new one. I am not a lawyer and do not know much but I think this behavior violates the code of consumer protection in my country. At the company where I work, all purchases of Embarcadero products are suspended (due to the huge amount of issues with the Brazilian support), so I will not have access to this update. We bought the DataSnap XE2 to use DataSnap, it had some problems and now we have to buy the XE3 to make it work. That simply will not happen. I think it’s a totally unacceptable. What do you think of the update policy of Embarcadero?
I still can not add my blog to DelphiFeeds list, so if you can help disseminate this, I thank you. I added a suggestion on feedback page of DelphiFeeds , but it seems I to need to get too many votes. If you wish you can help me.
Liked the post? Leave a comment!
ref : https://robertocschneiders.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/datasnap-analysis-based-on-speed-stability-tests-part-2/comment-page-1/