Open anibal-aguila opened 1 year ago
@anibal-aguila Hi, the comparison diagram in the wiki were rendered manually, not generated by this repo script, so if you want to use compare command, you need to use this repo scripts as benchmark tool, hey
is only suitable for single specific API test.
Hi @chlins, yes I'm doing it with perf
and don't get major difference in performance analysis.
Could be great if the results of harbor cache layer comparative analysis become standardized with perf to retrive results of Response Time, TPS and Success Rate.
I Share the actuall comparion between harbor cache enabled and disabled.
export HARBOR_URL=https://HARBOR-INSTANCE
export HARBOR_VUS=100
export HARBOR_ITERATIONS=600
export HARBOR_SIZE=ci
export HARBOR_REPORT=true
go run mage.go all
Thanks in advance,
I think the testing scenario is different, in the wiki page, we only benchmark the manifest API by hey
, and the comparison of tps, response if only for this API. But as you showed above, this repo script testing many harbor APIs, some APIs have no improvement by cache layer. The cache layer only benefits for the scenario of high concurrent pulling image manifests because our design around this case.(in fact, we do not have the test case for manifest API in this repo).
I see, actually we are using the official docker installation way on a VM with:
Total online memory: 16G
CPU(s): 4
Architecture: x86_64
Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8168 CPU @ 2.70GHz
A few questions about that:
Thanks in advance,
Hello, The wiki suggest use the benchmark Tool: https://github.com/rakyll/hey but the output seams become from perf, in this case running:
Please @chlins could you share the full guide and files to get our own results of Response Time, TPS and Success Rate.
Thanks in advance,