I am currently performance/scalability testing an ejabbered 1.1.1 instance with the objective of getting to somewhere around 5,000 *concurrent* logged in users.
ejabberd 1.1.1
erl 5.4.1
windows server 2003
ejabberd log:
=INFO REPORT==== 2006-06-12 17:16:25 ===
I(<0.246.0>:ejabberd_listener:104): (#Port<0.308>) Failed TCP accept: {enfile,[{erlang,open_port,[{spawn,tcp_inet},[binary]]},{prim_inet,open0,1},{prim_inet,async_accept,2},{prim_inet,accept0,2},{inet_tcp,accept,1},{ejabberd_listener,accept,3},{proc_lib,init_p,5}]}
Netstat on the client machine(s) show a value of "SYN_SENT"
Currently, I cannot login more than about 500 users at any time.
I have implemented the -env ERL_MAX_PORTS and the Windows Registry MaxUserPort configuration changes as suggested on this forum with no obvious effect. The -env ERL_MAX_PORTS seemed to have no effect at all. Even when set artificially *low*, I still peak at approx 500 concurrent users. This, of course, seems odd and makes me question my configuration parameters which are as follows:
s ejabberd -pa ebin -kernel inetrc \"./inetrc\" -sasl sasl_error_logger {file,\"log/sasl.log\"} -env ERL_MAX_PORTS 5000 -mnesia dir \"spool\"
Questions:
- Has anyone seen this issue and have any suggestions?
- What is the maximum concurrent users that anyone has achieved on Windows Server 2003 on a single instance?
I know that 5,000 might be reaching a bit for a Windows Server but 500 seems way too low!
Thanks in advance for any assistance
Did you read this similar
Did you read ?
--
sander
Yes, I read it and it helped but not enough.....
Yes, thanks for the tip. I read that post. That's where I got idea for the MaxUserPort Windows configuration change that I implemented on both client and server that I referenced in my post :-)
Unfortunately, I'm not near the 5,000 limit that Tiann referenced. My symptoms are actually a bit different. Tiann could make additional connections to the ejabberd server from other machines. I currently can't. Once I hit the 500 or so limit, I can not make any additional connections period.
I'd be very grateful if anyone has any pointers or other insights.
Maybe some restrictive
Maybe some restrictive firewall setting?
--
sander
Maybe but I dont think so
Thanks for the additional thoughts :-).
I have investigated the router/firewall angle and am somewhat confident that's not my current bottleneck because I can actually connect to substantially more than 500 users on a different server (ejabberd on Linux) on a different network from the same machines. I realize that's not a completely definitive test but it's the best that I can think to easily implement at the moment.
Further, I found this thread where Aleksey seems to state the cause of my problem:
in case of erl_max_ports limit the error would be "enfile"
.
I am receiving a "enfile" error. Coupling that with the fact that I get the same results when setting the ERL_MAX_PORTS very low, to say 10, makes me believe that somehow the ERL_MAX_PORTS is not being recognized? Again thanks in advance to any one that can help.