I’ve been doing some testing of various instance types in our staging environment, originally just to see if Amazon’s t2.* line of instances is usable in a real-world scenario. In the end, I found that not only are the t2.mediums viable for what I want them to do, but they’re far better suited than the m3.medium, which I wouldn’t use for anything that you ever expect to reach any load.
Here are the conditions for my test:
- Rails application (unicorn) fronted by nginx.
- The number of unicorn processes is controlled by chef, currently set to (CPU count * 2), so a 2 CPU instance has 4 unicorn workers.
- All instances are running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (AMI ami-864d84ee for HVM, ami-018c9568 for paravirtual) with kernel 3.13.0-29-generic #53-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 4 21:00:20 UTC 2014 x86_64.
- The test used loader.io to simulate 65 concurrent clients hitting the API (adding products to cart) as fast as possible for 600 seconds (10 minutes).
- The instances were all behind an Elastic Load Balancer, which routes traffic based on its own algorithm (supposedly the instances with the lowest CPU always gets the next request).
The below charts summarize the findings.
This chart shows each server’s performance as reported by nginx. The values are the average time to service each request and the standard deviation. While I expected the m3.large to outperform the m3.medium, I didn’t expect the difference to be so dramatic. The performance of the t2.medium is the real surprise, however.
# _sourcehost _avg _stddev 1 m3.large 6.30324 3.84421 2 m3.medium 15.88136 9.29829 3 t2.medium 4.80078 2.71403
These charts show the CPU activity for each instance during the test (data as per CopperEgg).
The m3.medium has a huge amount of CPU steal, which I’m guessing accounts for its horrible performance. Anecdotally, in my own experience m3.medium far more prone to CPU steal than other instance types. Moving from m3.medium to c3.large (essentially the same instance with 2 cpus) eliminates the CPU steal issue. However, since the t2.medium performs as well as the c3.large or m3.large and costs half of the c3.large (or nearly 1/3 of the m3.large) I’m going to try running most of my backend fleet on t2.medium.
I haven’t mentioned the credits system the t2.* instances use for burstable performance, and that’s because my tests didn’t make much of a dent in the credit balance for these instances. The load test was 100x what I expect to see in normal traffic patterns, so the t2.medium with burstable performance seems like an ideal candidate. I might add a couple c3.large to the mix as a backstop in case the credits were depleted, but I don’t think that’s a major risk – especially not in our staging environment.
I didn’t include the numbers, but the performance seemed to be the consistent whether on hvm or paravirtual instances.
One Reply to “The m3.medium is terrible”
Test disqus comment. Does it look ok?