🔬 YaCy Peer Performance: RAID 5 vs RAM Drive (DL360 Gen8, 384 GB RAM)

YaCy
9

:test_tube: YaCy Burst Load Benchmark: Corretto 21.0.7.6.1 Test Results

After resolving Corretto issue #99 and upgrading to Amazon Corretto 21.0.7.6.1, I ran a controlled burst test using JSON queries at 1 kHz, with a 10-second cooldown between bursts.

:desktop_computer: Test System

  • Hardware: HP DL360 Gen8
  • RAM: 384 GB ECC
  • Java: Amazon Corretto 21.0.7.6.1
  • YaCy Peers:
    • peer-universal on port 8093 (running from tmpfs)
    • peer-asx on port 8055 (running from RAID 5 backend)

:chart_with_upwards_trend: Performance Summary

:small_blue_diamond: peer-ramdrive (RAM-backed tmpfs)

Metric Value
CPU Usage 1100% → 700% → 500%
Min Response 0.01 s
Max Response 13.99 s
Avg Response 0.61 s
Std Deviation 0.59 s

:small_orange_diamond: peer-asx (RAID 5-backed)

Metric Value
CPU Usage 1100% → 1500% → 900%
Min Response 0.01 s
Max Response 36.5 s
Std Deviation 1.66 s

:white_check_mark: Conclusion

  • The RAM-backed peer (peer-ramdrive) performed significantly better under burst load, with consistently low latency and tight standard deviation.
  • The RAID 5 peer (peer-asx) exhibited much higher CPU usage and tail latency spikes up to 36.5 seconds, likely due to disk I/O and thread contention.
  • I’m unable to overload the cpu’s to the same level as I was able to before with previous tests with stress testers in QB64 and python.