Stress Test: Page 3 - Enhance Control Panel

Stress Test

fbaye

AdamM Send me your loader.io settings/ config

AdamM

fbaye I only add Headers - Accept-Encoding - gzip,deflate

fbaye

AdamM I mean take a screenshot of this screen https://imgur.com/a/zWBb525 I want to make sure our tests are the same.

AdamM

Zoinkies

AdamM Check your tidio chat 🙂

fbaye

https://imgur.com/a/D9n5fVh This is my configuration matching your tests with LSE. Ignore the initial high TTFB had rate limiting enables 🙂

AdamM

fbaye I understand but we are talking about something else, you use cache right?

AdamM

fbaye What our machine for such a good result without cache.? How much cpu and ram?

fbaye

AdamM No cache

AdamM

fbaye so is a very good result

Adrien

AdamM I'm concerned.
Honestly, I thought containers were helping with WP performance by isolating one another. It's also my very first experience using LiteSpeed Enterprise. I was really hoping for better perf then with RC OLS. After noticing my results were off, I hired the LiteSpeed team to check my AMD 7950X. I was hoping to join friends for a contest but declined because I felt something wasn't right, but I don't know what.
I can't even handle 3000 users before my test fails.

fbaye Here are my loader.io settings:

Hopefully we can find out and improve the perf.

AdamM

Adrien of course you use cache litespeed ? A lot also depends on the website size.
Can you provide the final result?

Adrien

AdamM I did. Maybe you missed my post above.

Adrien RC 5950X. 0 - 5000 clients over 1 min
Results: https://bit.ly/2XPCkGk

Enhance 7950X. 0 - 5000 clients over 1 min
Results: https://bit.ly/3IXfUYJ

At the moment, the test failed on Enhance. Yes, I'm using Litespeed cache plugin.

AdamM

Adrien How many cores and threads does your processor have?
The first test doesn't look too bad yet, but the second one is weak

gavin

What pages are you guys testing? Result on a page which can be cached vs not will be much different. Testing on home page vs woocommerce cart page results will be totally different.

AdamM

gavin
They are I mean performance without cache enabled by default for litespeed. I gave a test for caddy without cache above and the result is very good and I wonder why it doesn't work well in litespeed

Adrien

AdamM The first test was done on a Hetzner AMD5950X using Runcloud.

The second test was done with Enhance on an AMD7950X.
16 Cores, 32 Threads
Base Clock 4.5GHz

PradeepC

When I ran the tests a few days back, yes, I had used OLS on both Enhance as well as RC.
Here are the things that were similar,

OLS on both Enhance and RC.
I had turned OpCache on Enhance. On RC, FastCGI might have helped get more numbers on NginX but with OLS I had nothing turned on.
LS Cache was disabled on both Enhance and RC as client website had some issues with elements not getting displayed properly with LS Cache.

One thing I might have mentioned incorrectly was OLS stack handled around 3-3.5k visitors and NginX was able to handle over 5k. NginX might be more due to FastCGI.

The thread was posted just for this discovery. I also am not really sure what might have caused this big gap in numbers, but I would certainly like to test this again in the future. Right now, I am just a bit more busy with some internal work. But once I test it out, I will surely update this thread.

« Previous Page