In memory fdsnws-station-text

[damb]

Features and Changes:

• Instead of dumping fdsnws-station-text download task results into temporary files, keep them in-memory

[damb]

Stats:

Test were performed using the docker setup from https://github.com/EIDA/mediatorws/tree/feature/in-memory-station-text/docker/prod at localhost (i.e. granular endpoint requests; HTTP caching); logLevel=WARNING

N=100 Columns: Percentiles | Response start time | Response total time (times in seconds)

• Query: /fdsnws/station/1/query?net=CH&format=text

  • File based:

    50%: [0.9462825 2.1556645]
    85%: [0.9964951 2.26633  ]
    90%: [1.0228163 2.3158552]
    95%: [1.1145799  2.39628655]
    99%: [2.04467591 3.22645922]

  • In-memory:

    50%: [0.8970515 2.0515955]
    85%: [0.92775625 2.11524265]
    90%: [1.5534705 2.70055  ]
    95%: [1.6321251 2.8170224]
    99%: [2.27393176 3.44195183]

The difference is just marginal. Most probably there is still some kind of OS-level caching involved.

[kaestli]

This is OS level disk caching.

[damb]

This is OS level disk caching.

@kaestli, do you know the actual limits of OS-level disk caching? How does it scale with more files (most probably this is both hardware, OS and filesystem dependent, right)?

[kaestli]

I know that linux typically uses the entire free physical RAM for caching (windows, at least non-server versions, not). It is widely configurable (e.g. https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/30286/can-i-configure-my-linux-system-for-more-aggressive-file-system-caching); configuration is different for physical devices and NFS. Actual disk operation is FS-dependent, thus i guess also the effects of some config parameters. I think, at least for the current application, OS level optimization of the caching strategy may be overkill.