metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kyle Richardson <kylerichards...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: performance benchmarks on the asa parser
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:32:50 GMT
I like the pre-compile idea. One concern is I see the number of grok objects growing over time.
This parser does not account for nearly all of the possible ASA message types, currently only
the most common ones. Is there a middle ground implementation where we can compile on first
use of a grok and then hold in memory? Avoids the up front burden but should also boost performance.

-Kyle

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:56 PM, Simon Elliston Ball <simon@simonellistonball.com> wrote:
> 
> The changes are pretty simple (pre-compile the grok, duh). Most other grok parser just
use a single expression, which is already pre-compiled (/checks assumption in code) so really
it’s just the ASA one because of it’s strange two stage grok. 
> 
> Shame, it would have been nice to find some more low hanging fruit.
> 
> Simon
> 
>> On 9 Jun 2017, at 01:52, Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Are these changes that all grok parsers can benefit from?  Are your changes to the
base classes that they use or asa only?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On June 8, 2017 at 20:49:49, Simon Elliston Ball (simon@simonellistonball.com
<mailto:simon@simonellistonball.com>) wrote:
>>> 
>>> I got mildly interested in parser performance as a result of some recent work
on tuning, and did some very quick benchmarking with Predfix on the ASA parser (which I hadn’t
really cared about enough due to relatively low volume previously). 
>>> 
>>> That said, it’s not exactly perf optimised. 3 runs of 1000 iterations on my
laptop as a micro-benchmark in Predfix (I know, scientific, right), with some changes (basically
pushing all the grok statements up to pre-compile in init (the parser currently uses one grok
to do the syslog bit and figure out which grok it needs for the second half, so this makes
for a large number of Grok objects upfront, which I think we can live with.  
>>> 
>>> Do you think we should do this benchmarking properly, and extend? Anyone have
thoughts about how to build parser benchmarks in to our test suite properly? 
>>> 
>>> Also, since these are showing approx 20 times improvement on the P95 interval,
do we think it’s worth the memory (not measured, but 39 Grok objects hanging around? If
so I’ll get it JIRAed up and push my new version. 
>>> 
>>> Run results:- 
>>> 
>>> Base line (current master as is) 
>>> |= Benchmark ==================================================================================|

>>> | - | unit | sum | min | max | avg | stddev | conf95 | runs | 
>>> |========================================= TimeMeter ==========================================|

>>> |. AsaBenchmark ...............................................................................|

>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 5597.98 | 04.90 | 159.02 | 05.60 | 04.89 | [05.01-06.20]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 5503.91 | 04.82 | 149.60 | 05.50 | 04.59 | [05.00-05.90]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 5620.90 | 04.80 | 152.83 | 05.62 | 04.71 | [04.98-06.73]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> |==============================================================================================|

>>> 
>>> Syslog element of Grok pulled out and pre-compiled 
>>> 
>>> |= Benchmark ==================================================================================|

>>> | - | unit | sum | min | max | avg | stddev | conf95 | runs | 
>>> |========================================= TimeMeter ==========================================|

>>> |. AsaBenchmark ...............................................................................|

>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 4299.91 | 03.29 | 120.06 | 04.30 | 03.89 | [03.36-07.10]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 4206.98 | 03.31 | 129.41 | 04.21 | 04.07 | [03.46-05.44]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 3843.05 | 03.28 | 119.39 | 03.84 | 03.79 | [03.33-04.55]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> |==============================================================================================|

>>> 
>>> With all precompiled in a hash map (more memory use, but not by a lot) 
>>> 
>>> |= Benchmark =================================================================================|

>>> | - | unit | sum | min | max | avg | stddev | conf95 | runs | 
>>> |========================================= TimeMeter =========================================|

>>> |. AsaBenchmark ..............................................................................|

>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 514.68 | 00.22 | 112.35 | 00.51 | 03.55 | [00.24-00.79]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 472.42 | 00.22 | 105.19 | 00.47 | 03.32 | [00.23-00.70]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> | parserBenchmark | ms | 484.40 | 00.21 | 103.71 | 00.48 | 03.27 | [00.24-00.76]
| 1000.00 | 
>>> |==============================================================================================|

>>> 
>>> Simon
> 

Mime
View raw message