forked from lyndon160/vsftpd-backdoor
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
BENCHMARKS
70 lines (51 loc) · 2.84 KB
/
BENCHMARKS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
- See also SPEED
Update 2nd Nov 2001
ftp.redhat.com ran vsftpd for the RedHat 7.2 release. vsftpd achieved 4,000
concurrent users on a single machine with 1Gb RAM. Even with this insane user
count, bandwidth remained totally saturated. The user count could have been
higher, but the machine ran out of processes.
--
Below are some quick benchmark figures vs. wu-ftpd. This is an untuned BETA
version of vsftpd (0.0.10)
The executive summary is that wu-ftpd got a thorough thrashing. The most
telling statistic is wu-ftpd typically failing to sustain 400 users, whereas
vsftpd copes with 1000 with room to spare.
A 2.2.x kernel was used. A 2.4.x kernel should make vsftpd look even better
relative to wu-ftpd thanks to the sendfile() boosts in 2.4.x. A 2.4.x kernel
with zerocopy should be amazing.
Many thanks to Andrew Anderson <[email protected]>
--
Here's some benchmarks that I did on vsftpd vs. wu-ftpd. The tests were
run with "dkftpbench -hftpserver -n500 -t600 -f/pub/dkftp/<file>". The
attached file are the summary output with time to reach the steady-state
condition.
The interesting things I noticed are:
- In the raw test results, vsftpd had a much higher peak on the x10k.dat
transfer run than wu-ftpd did. Wu-ftpd peaked at ~150 connections and
bled down to ~130 connections, while vsftpd peaked at ~400 connections and
bled down to ~160 connections. I tend to believe the peaks more than the
final steady-state that dkftpbench reports, though.
- For the other tests, our wu-ftpd setup was limited to 400 connections,
but in about half of the x100k/x1000k runs could not even sustain 400
connections, while vsftpd handled 500 easily on those runs.
- During the peak runs at x10k, the machine load with vsftpd looked like
this (I don't have this data still for the wu-ftpd runs):
01:01:00 AM all 4.92 0.00 21.23 73.85
03:31:00 AM all 4.89 0.00 19.53 75.58
05:11:00 AM all 4.19 0.00 16.89 78.92
07:01:00 AM all 5.61 0.00 22.47 71.92
The steady-state loads were more in the 3-5% user, 10-15% system. For the
x100/x1000 loads with vsftpd, the system load looked like this:
x100k.dat:
09:01:00 AM all 2.27 0.00 9.79 87.94
x1000k.dat:
11:01:00 AM all 0.42 0.00 5.75 93.83
Not bad -- 500 concurrent users for ~7% system load.
- Just for kicks I ran the x1000k test with 1000 users. At peak load:
X1000k.dat with 1000 users:
04:41:00 PM all 1.23 0.00 46.59 52.18
Based on what I'm seeing, it looks like if a server had enough bandwidth,
it could indeed sustain ~2000 users with the current 2 process model
that's implemented in vsftpd. I did notice that dkftpbench slowed down
the connection rate after 800 connections. I'm not sure if that was a
dkftpbench issue, or if I ran into something other limit.