Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 43 Next »

MA-1099 - Getting issue details... STATUS

 

Endpoints: 

 


Notes and considerations:

Thread and Comment pool:

    Various methods of select post data were considered.

  • Selecting threads from a smaller pool or selecting the same thread.  Rather than getting the entire list of thread_ids to send requests against, we would just store a random portion of the threads. A test was run to see if matters whether the retrieved thread was random or not, but the sandbox it was run against did not have the correct mongo indexes set up. Regardless, this strategy would not work when trying to DELETE threads as the pool of potential threads would be smaller. Additionally this relies on storing data that must be shared amongst the locust users which could lead to race conditions as a locust user could be trying to GET a thread that another locust user was in the middle of DELETEing. When dealing with much larger file IO operations, it could cause some limitations on the machine that spawns the locusts.
  • Retrieving the list of thread ids when starting locust. This method was effective up until the number of threads in the data set started to increase. As the median number of posts in a course is ~2000, when trying to retrieve 20*(page size max of 100), it would take 20 queries. Additionally, as mentioned in the above strategy, storing data amongst the locust users is not a trivial task. Each locust user would try to generate it's own list of threads which is unacceptable. If a thread was POSTed or DELETEd, only that locust user would have that updated information. Attempts at using the lazy module did not work either as each list of threads was instantiated separately by each locust user. Again, even if the locust users were able to use the same global variables, there would be race conditions. 
  • Calling GET thread_list per DELETE/PATCH/GET_comment. Since the ratio of GET thread_list is significantly higher than any of the other calls, we can achieve the desired distribution of requests for the discussion API. The table below is a 7 day snapshot on NewRelic for the 

    ActionCount Discussion API Call
    .forum.views:single_thread6759804760GET Thread
    .forum.views:forum_form_discussion2347831653GET Thread List
    .forum.views:inline_discussion1551761093GET Thread List
    create_thread31176220POST Thread
    create_comment27438193POST comment
    create_sub_comment14345101POST comment
    users1382097-
    .forum.views:user_profile1233687-
    .forum.views:followed_threads769854GET Thread List
    vote_for_comment673147PATCH Comment
    vote_for_thread624244PATCH Thread
    upload420830-
    update_comment340324PATCH Comment
    follow_thread387027PATCH Thread
    update_thread282720PATCH Thread
    delete_thread209115DELETE Thread
    endorse_comment12329PATCH Comment
    delete_comment7705DELETE Comment
    flag_abuse_for_comment3733PATCH Comment
    flag_abuse_for_thread1421PATCH Thread
  • Using pre-stored thread_id data. 

Things that were left out:

Moderator actions

  • Pin Thread - Not implemented
  • Open/Close Thread -Not implemented
  • Endorsed - Not Implemented

 Staff vs. Normal User:

    Using users with staff access was thrown into consideration as it would be make some of the permissions a bit more difficult for some discussion forums actions such as editing the body of a thread. Some tests were ran to see if there was a difference. No difference was found the tests that were designed to check for a difference. 

    


/threads/

GET: 

 Invalid: Old test that was invalid due to the way mongo is set up

Using 10 locust users with min/max time of 1000/2000ms, GET requests for sent for either a single thread or randomly from a selection of 10% of the threads in a course. This was tested against a sandbox.

  • It seems like getting a random thread vs. the same thread does not make a reliably noticeable difference.
  • As number of posts in the database increase, the response time also increases.
  • Number of posts in a course does not seem to be matter for GETting a post. 

Update: This conclusion is invalid as the sandbox does not have the proper indexes. 

 

Approx Total PostsName# requests# failsMedianAverageMinMaxContent Size# reqs/sec
1000GET a random Thread out of 1000 Posts26710140150125.5698204410.569906211785.8
1000GET a single Thread out of 1000 Posts22620140151126.8491745337.106943111785.9
11000GET a random Thread out of 10000 Posts15220180196164.470911447.613000911786
11000GET a single Thread out of 10000 Posts15930180198164.4868851480.930805211785.8
11100GET a random Thread out of 100 Posts5420180193164.2448902419.183015811785.9
11100GET a single Thread out of 100 Posts7380180199165.0490761434.263944611786
12100GET a random Thread out of 1000 Posts6830180204166.1930084489.537954311785.6
12100GET a single Thread out of 1000 Posts10490180202169.2481041443.414926511786
13100GET a random Thread out of 1000 Posts14730180209171.40197751157.29904211786.1
13100GET a single Thread out of 1000 Posts13170180204170.7370281510.493993811785.8
14100GET a random Thread out of 1000 Posts8550190209175.9641171468.723058711786
14100GET a single Thread out of 1000 Posts75570190213173.6099721970.30401211785.1

POST: 

 Missing some data: After 1,000,000 posts in 24 hours, the response time remain constant.

Unfortunately locust ran into a calculation error when running a post test so there is no table data. After 1,000,000 posts in 24 hours, the response time remain constant. This was tested against https://courses-loadtest.edx.org/ 

/threads/{thread_id}

GET: 

Waiting on Loadtest env to get meaningful results. Refer to /threads/get

PATCH: 

 

 Patch events for the boolean values took more or less the same amount of time.
This was tested against a t2.large sandbox. 

 

TypeName# requests# failsMedianAverageMinMaxContent Size# reqs/sec
PATCHabuse_flagged1814030031596.833944321307.78193520092.5
PATCHfollowing1847030031497.836017611730.39698619391.9
PATCHvoted1875031031997.416877751427.901032104

1.3

 Patch events for being a Staff vs. Non-staff user did not make a difference.
Using 2 locust user intentionally split between staff and non-staff tasks, PATCH requests were sent with a 500ms wait time. This was tested against a t2.large sandbox. 

 

Namereqs#failsAvgMinMaxMedianreq/s
PATCHabuse_flag_thread330(0.00%)3322444703300
PATCHfollowing_thread1200(0.00%)3262414563300.2
PATCHstaff_abuse_flag_thread400(0.00%)3202404023300
PATCHstaff_following_thread1100(0.00%)3332394823300
PATCHstaff_vote_on_thread17740(0.00%)339229176073301.1
PATCHvote_on_thread17870(0.00%)331226145993301
 Different body sized edits did not seem to make a difference in response times.
Namereqs#failsAvgMinMaxMedianreq/s
PATCHabuse_flag_thread160(0.00%)1621172121500
PATCHedit_thread_with_10000char500(0.00%)1991514241900.1
PATCHedit_thread_with_1000char610(0.00%)23413837071700.1
PATCHedit_thread_with_250char540(0.00%)1781364221600.1
PATCHedit_thread_with_4char570(0.00%)1831383311700.1
PATCHedit_thread_with_5000char570(0.00%)1881413411800.1
PATCHfollowing_thread420(0.00%)1681303371600.2
PATCHvote_on_thread6980(0.00%)1601146521501.1

DELETE:

 DELETE will be best tested with the other endpoints

For every DELETE thread, we POST a Thread and then GET a thread from the thread pool. This was tested against a t2.large.sandbox.

Namereqs#failsAvgMinMaxMedianreq/s
DELETEDELETE_thread3051(0.33%)2031373521903
GETGET_thread_list3060(0.00%)1901544201702.9
POSTPOST_thread3060(0.00%)1271022771103

/comments/

GET: 

 mark_as_read and page did not seem to affect the response time at all.
Using 10 locust users with min/max time of 1000/2000ms, GET requests for sent for 1 of 10 threads with 100 responses in increasing increments of 100 responses, each with single comment.  The page_size seemed to be the parameter that affected the response time. This was tested against a t2.large sandbox.

 

TypeName# requests# failsMedianAverageMinMaxContent Size# reqs/sec
GETpage_size=100552012001212689.62907792079.3230531677470.6
GETpage_size=75588010001053570.69206241957.837821258580.7
GETpage_size=505520900927459.97500421813.49206839581.1
GETpage_size=255250790810345.99900251692.13295420581
GETpage_size=15570680710237.98203471673.28906118330.8
 None of the parameters affect the response time. As comments on a response increases, so does the response time.
Using 10 locust users with min/max time of 1000/2000ms, GET requests for sent for 1 of 10 threads with 1 response with comments increasing in increments of 50.  This was tested against a t2.large sandbox.

 

TypeName# requests# failsMedianAverageMinMaxContent Size# reqs/sec
GETcomments=5003520170018221361.5820413062.2570514068320.1
GETcomments=4503950160017101244.3480493462.923053662320.3
GETcomments=4003870140015521093.0590634270.4479693256320.1
GETcomments=350394013001394972.35107422612.5550272850320.4
GETcomments=300379011001233827.77094842370.137932444320.2
GETcomments=25035309701056708.37497712795.85292038320
GETcomments=2003520830943583.65988732230.6971551632320.1
GETcomments=1503680680785441.07198722042.1819691226320.2
GETcomments=1003420540658323.15111161866.328001820320.2
GETcomments=503900390512194.78607182818.300009414320.3

POST: 

POST should be similar to POSTing threads

/comments/comment_id

PATCH: 

 As with PATCHing a thread, body edit size did not seem to matter. Boolean patches also seemed to be the same.
Namereqs#failsAvgMinMaxMedianreq/s
GETGET_comment_list9160(0.00%)2601196432403
GETGET_thread_list9160(0.00%)2751875712602.9
PATCHabuse_flag_comment470(0.00%)2711595132600.4
PATCHedit_comment_with_10000char600(0.00%)3072054983000.2
PATCHedit_comment_with_1000char570(0.00%)2641654482500.2
PATCHedit_comment_with_250char710(0.00%)2641604672500.3
PATCHedit_comment_with_4char760(0.00%)2651664692500.4
PATCHedit_comment_with_5000char600(0.00%)2931955972800.1
PATCHvote_on_comment5470(0.00%)2831306412701.5

DELETE: 

DELETE is best tested with the other endpoints. For every comment delete, we POST a thread, GET a random thread, and then DELETE that random thread.

  • No labels