Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Possible tail-latency regression from v2.0.0-beta5 -> v2.0.1 #1779

Closed
ja30278 opened this issue Oct 28, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Possible tail-latency regression from v2.0.0-beta5 -> v2.0.1 #1779

ja30278 opened this issue Oct 28, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@ja30278
Copy link

ja30278 commented Oct 28, 2020

🐛 Bug Report

Upgrading from v2.0.0-beta5 to v2.0.1, I noticed quite a large regression in tail latency performance.

I'm using grpc-gateway to front a localhost GRPC server in the same process, and p99 latency for my test workload increased from 85ms to 300ms. Rolling back grpc-gateway to v2.0.0-beta5 resolved the issue.

I profiled the server using pprof, but did not see obvious changes in the profile that would explain the increase.

To Reproduce

Build with v2.0.0-beta 5, send requests using ab (or other load generation tool), update grpc-gateway to v2.0.1, repeat

Expected behavior

Tail latency unchanged

Actual Behavior

Increase in p99 latency that was resolved by rolling back grpc-gateway to 2.0.0-beta5

Your Environment

Linux version 5.4.0-1031-azure (buildd@lcy01-amd64-021) (gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu118.04)) #3218.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Oct 6 10:03:22 UTC 2020

@johanbrandhorst
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the bug report! This is the first time I've ever seen a performance bug report, cool! Here are the changes between v2.0.0-beta.5 and v2.0.1: 462ce8c...5c1639c.

I'll have a look tomorrow to see if I can see anything obvious.

@ja30278
Copy link
Author

ja30278 commented Oct 28, 2020

@johanbrandhorst sorry for the sparse details and lack of a repro test case. I was trying to at least file the issue so that I can reference it in a PR to pin our version back to 2.0.0-beta.5. I'll see if I can narrow it down, I did have a look at the set of changes between the versions, and nothing obvious jumped out.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 28, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the wontfix label Dec 28, 2020
@stale stale bot closed this as completed Jan 4, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants