Professional OPC
Development Tools

logos

Performance Differences on Windows & Linux

More
28 Sep 2019 11:54 #7767 by support
Hello.

Our volume testing does not actually have a similar scenario (many devices, albeit with small number of items). We test large number of items against a single server, and possibly a mixed scenario - several devices with moderate number of items. What you are trying to achieve has not been seriously tested.

From the very principle of it, it actually poses higher load on the system, compared to what we consider a normal use case. OPC software in general is usually optimized for high granularity - that is, each new monitored items added should only cause small resource consumption in terms of memory, treads, CPU etc. But the "grouping" concepts - subscriptions, sessions - which are also needed, have higher resource consumption - and that's normally OK, because their number is normally much lower than the number of monitored items. But in your case, the ratio is 1:4.

So, obviously there must be some limits to what the software can do, and the numbers you have given are manifestation of that. To us, they are acceptable, and the fact that they differ under different systems is not unexpected. Why precisely they differ - I do not know, and it has not concerned us so far.

My suggestion is simply to split the application in such a way that each process stays under the observed limits.
If that's not what you want to do, we may offer performance tuning/optimizations for this use case as a custom paid work.

Also, can you please give details as to the use of complex data types - how "complex" are they? A simple structure with a couple of fields, or more complicated? Decoding complex data types is also quite demanding, so I'd like to figure out what impact it has.

Is the CPU consumption high (how much) when you are below the limits, i.e. when it still works well?

Regards

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
27 Sep 2019 04:40 #7765 by sjscheider
We have been experimenting running our .NET Core app on both Windows 10 and Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) and are seeing some interest results that we are hoping you can validate, explain and provide some recommendations.

Our original app was written for Windows and was able to support connecting to 300+ OPC-UA server/devices. For each device, the app subscribes to data change events for 4 complex data nodes. The code was written to use a separate EasyUAClient object per device, with isolation set to false. To achieve the 300+ devices, we needed to run two instances of the application on the PC. A single instance of the app starts to fail around 225 devices while use two instances handles 300+. (We don’t have enough device simulators to get over the 300 device number.) Also, we need to set the worker thread count to 1000 and the port thread count to 100.
Int workerThreadCount = 1000;
Int portThreadCount = 100;
ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(workerThreadCount, portThreadCount);
When we run this same app on our Linux server, which is identical hardware as the Windows box, we are only able to support about 120 devices until the application started throwing exceptions. Before the exceptions occur, we noticed that the thread count would fluctuate up and down between 300 and 400. Then after a few minutes, the thread count would start climbing and never recover. To get the maximum performance from the app on Linux, we set the worker thread count to 5000 and the port thread count to 1000.

Here is what a typical exception looks like:
ErrorCode: -1, ErrorMessageBrief: The OPC-UA subscription ID 305 publishing has halted on the client session to endpoint URL "opc.tcp://192.168.1.11:4869" for approximate current duration of 11739 milliseconds. The current keep-alive count is 20, the current publishing interval is 250 milliseconds, and the probationary period was 5000 milliseconds.
workerThreads: 31755, portThreads: 1000, threadCount: 1062
So after some experimentation, we were able to determine that using a single EasyUAClient object for all connection, the app would support more devices on Linux but less on Windows. On the Linux box, the app was able to support about 180 devices across 2 instances of the application. While on Windows, the app was able to support about 120 devices across 2 instances of the application.

Do our results mirror what you’ve seen in your testing?

Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the performance on Linux?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: support
Time to create page: 0.176 seconds

      

 Recommend this on Google