Transactions-per-Second (TPS) is a valuable metric for evaluating system performance and is particularly relevant for engineers overseeing Kubernetes environments. This post covers two approaches to calculating TPS; a manual approach applicable in all environments, and an automatic Kubernetes-specific solution using production traffic replication.
Additionally, this post will discuss how different variations of TPS impacts the metric’s usability in different scenarios. Understanding the differences in calculation approaches and variations will aid in optimizing your infrastructure and applications in a Kubernetes environment, ensuring optimal performance.
Manually Calculating Transactions-per-Second
Calculating TPS in a generalized environment is relatively simple: the number of transactions in a time period divided by the total number of seconds. However, TPS alone isn’t sufficient for useful insights. Several factors can significantly impact how you view and utilize TPS, especially when replicating production conditions to exercise your application or network, such as load balancers or CDNs.
TPS provides moment-in-time insight. Understanding ramp patterns—how load starts and tails down—is essential in providing context to your TPS calculation and realistically simulating production conditions. Depending on your target audience’s geolocation, your load patterns can vary wildly and impact your need for testing.
Experiencing immediate load in production but only testing slow ramp conditions won’t provide useful insights. Conversely, experiencing sustained loads in production but only testing spikes has the same effect, and you could be missing important memory or CPU issues only occurring over long periods of time.
Testing autoscaling often requires an understanding of ramp patterns as it often doesn’t work how people expect—like taking longer to scale up than anticipated—and allows for direct comparisons to production when optimizing your application. Ultimately, understanding your ramp patterns aids in creating a more resilient service, ensuring high availability even under fluctuating conditions.
Determining a baseline ramp pattern from production, you can apply modifications to understand future possible scenarios, e.g., how a 30% increase in the user base will affect application performance.
Sustained TPS loads can occur in a variety of scenarios and possibly result in memory leaks, CPU issues, and other critical failures. If your application experienced sustained TPS, it’s essential to replicate this behavior with soak tests.
While spike TPS can indicate some failures, errors like memory leaks might not occur until an hour or two into sustained load, like with caches filling up. Traffic replication is a powerful tool for soak tests as you can record five minutes of traffic, then loop it. This also ensures realistic usage, resulting in valuable and actionable insights.
Realistic load generation is especially crucial in environments with small requests occurring millions of times, such as database queries. The query itself may be small in isolation, but failures happening with thousands of requests per second can have severe consequences. Inducing those kinds of issues with realistic sustained TPS is important.
Coupling this with detailed monitoring can help set a baseline for how TPS and resource usage correlate, allowing you to experiment with optimizations like the use of connection pooling while ensuring the same or higher level of TPS.
Spikes in traffic can be the result of events like Black Friday or high-profile media coverage, but may have severe consequences if your autoscaling isn’t prepared for it. You should determine the max TPS encountered in production and verify your ability to scale for it—again requiring you to understand ramp patterns.
Atypical spike TPS can be invoked intentionally to e.g. measure application resiliency or determine failure behavior during intense traffic spikes. With distributed systems, spike TPS can also be useful in determining how the system dissipates the high load, either with atypical spikes for chaos testing or with realistic spikes during feature development or optimization.
Engineering managers may also invoke spike TPS in testing to aid in developing contingency plans and failure strategies. In the same vein, invoking spike TPS can help set realistic expectations for application behavior during upcoming events, like a new marketing campaign.
When implementing design patterns for resiliency like the circuit breaker pattern, you can invoke spike TPS to stress the application, then monitor if and how the new pattern affects the overall TPS. This can help you understand the tradeoff in performance for improved resiliency, an important consideration during decision-making.
Variability Given Differences in Message Size
Database queries are processed quicker than serving images due to the variability in message size and is an essential consideration to keep in mind when calculating and monitoring TPS. You should determine the expected TPS of a specific service individually to avoid a false sense of security from higher TPS achieved due to smaller messages, as opposed to evaluating every kind of service using a generalized TPS threshold. 50 TPS may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice, an API may be handling 150 TPS at normal operation.
Keeping this in mind, you may discover certain processes or components more sensitive to message size, like a content management platform, and implement optimizations or compromises. For example, you could split images into multiple requests with parallel processing or utilize data partitioning.
Use of a CDN
CDNs can provide local caching and accelerate load times, resulting in a better user experience. Monitoring TPS during the implementation of a CDN can provide insights into how the overall system performance is optimized.
For insights into how effective the CDN is you can monitor its TPS compared to the real backend, again aiding in decision-making. For example, should you focus on optimizing the backend, or optimizing the CDN usage? If the CDN TPS is significantly higher with no clear or obvious bottlenecks in the backend, it may be beneficial to optimize CDN usage. Conversely, it may indicate the severity of any known bottlenecks.
You may also implement advanced CDN features like serverless functions, and monitor the difference in TPS between cache hits and serverless functions.
If you’re already using a CDN it’s important to keep in mind during testing, as you want to avoid using the TPS calculated based on a mixed usage of the CDN and the real backend, if you only intend to test the service in isolation. On the other hand, you want to ensure that you’re using the user-facing TPS if you do intend to include your CDN as part of testing.
Properly configured load balancers can optimize TPS by efficiently distributing traffic, with improper configurations possibly causing traffic to be routed incorrectly, negatively affecting throughput. Establishing a baseline TPS can help identify load balancer issues, and load testing with higher TPS can fine-tune balancing rules to ensure stability and resiliency.
Utilize your understanding of ramp patterns along with sustained and spike TPS to verify how your load balancer handles different scenarios, either those experienced in production or those you expect to occur as a result of upcoming changes or events.
This approach can also reveal opportunities for cost savings or resource optimization. For instance, you may discover certain configurations providing similar performance benefits with fewer resources, like routing to different clusters with different configurations depending on the nature of the request.
Some load balancers offer advanced capabilities like SSL/TLS termination or session resumption, which can heavily influence performance. Monitoring TPS along with resource utilization and how they correlate, can provide a better image of the overall performance impact.
Given how the network of your infrastructure affects everything, analyzing TPS changes based on different network configurations can provide useful insights, possibly discovering situations with network congestion. For latency-sensitive applications like real-time communication or online gambling, ensuring optimal network performance is essential.
TPS can also be useful when doing network migrations like moving from HTTP/2 to HTTP/3, or implementing QoS mechanisms, and in comparisons like how Nylas discovered more than 40% better price-to-performance.
Monitoring TPS across different geolocations can aid in deciding whether to expand into more geographically diverse data centers, optimize routing policies, or implement network acceleration techniques like TCP optimization. By replicating real-world production traffic, engineering managers can test these various implementations, proactively addressing network-related performance issues before they significantly impact the user experience.
Limitations of Manual Calculation
Though manually calculating TPS can provide valuable insights and is possible with most metric collection tools, there are important limitations to consider that are inherent to manual calculations.
Requires exact timing
In a workload with your TPS being in the hundreds or thousands, a slight variation in the timing of data can significantly impact the accuracy of your TPS calculations. This can in large part be mitigated with averages or 99th percentiles, but it’s often impossible to get fully accurate numbers.
This variation can result from metric sampling, the effective distance between the service and the monitoring agent, or simply inconsistent metric collection. This inaccuracy may lead to misinformed decisions.
The optimal mitigation strategy is to use an agent living as close to your service as possible like a sidecar, able to capture the exact timing of your requests and allow for filtering out irrelevant data. Using advanced tools may also aid in understanding how TPS correlates between services, like in a microservice architecture.
Requires more maintenance
Manually TPS calculation adds more configurations that require support and maintenance, potentially affecting your team’s efficiency. Consider what it takes to show TPS on a monitoring dashboard.
Assuming you’ve already collected the metric “request count”, it’s as simple as dividing that metric by the number of seconds in a chosen period. However, this is still another configuration needing to be maintained—and replicated on each dashboard individually—and requires close attention to how data is aggregated, which then has to be replicated precisely in other tools like CI/CD pipelines.
Important questions to ask are: does it only count requests started within the time period? Does it include requests that started but have not finished? What about requests that started before the time period but finished within?
It’s crucial that your system allows full transparency and control over how TPS is calculated.
Possibly complex in dynamic scenarios
In dynamic scenarios, determining TPS for each service instance can become complex. This complexity may impede your ability to monitor performance effectively and make informed decisions about infrastructure needs.
For instance, when monitoring the performance of autoscaling you need to monitor the TPS of each individual instance _and _the overall system. A dip in overall TPS but no TPS dip in an individual instance may indicate that new instances aren’t spinning up fast enough.
May prevent Transactions-per-Second being included in CI/CD
Though all of the above limitations can result in miscalculations, you may decide a TPS variation of 10 is not too impactful in a service averaging 500 TPS. On a monitoring dashboard this may be true, but can result in unintended failures of CI/CD pipelines.
If your application usually reaches 505 max TPS you may define a goal like, “application must reach 500 max TPS at a minimum”. Then, it reaches 505 TPS, you have a variation of 10, the pipeline reports 495 TPS, and now it fails. Especially if it’s not readily apparent when any variation is present from a miscalculation, this can cause frustration and wasted time in troubleshooting.
Though regression testing has historically been confined to functional testing, including TPS in CI/CD can allow for performance regression testing.
Determining Transactions-per-Second in Kubernetes
Mitigating the above limitations in Kubernetes and ensuring reliable inclusion of TPS in testing can be done with production traffic replication. This section covers how Speedscale automatically calculates and reports TPS.
Note that while this doesn’t include a complete overview of how to set up Speedscale, it should still prove useful in showcasing the possibilities available in Kubernetes.
Viewing TPS in Real-Time
Speedscale uses an Operator installed in your Kubernetes cluster, which can be installed either using the
speedctl CLI tool or with a Helm chart. This non-intrusive method collects traffic data by instrumenting Pods with a sidecar-proxy and reports it in the WebUI.
The WebUI presents incoming and outgoing traffic data along with the calculated TPS. As the tool also reports outbound TPS—a feature not often found in other monitoring solutions—you can examine whether performance degradation stems from logic inside the application or from the application’s dependencies.
To view the TPS of a given service, open it in the traffic viewer (seen in the screenshot above) in your Speedscale account, or use the interactive demo. Hovering over the either the inbound or outbound throughput reveals the effective TPS at any given point in time.
This approach of using a sidecar-proxy ensures accurate timestamps, as requests are captured as they enter and leave the Pod, removing possible influences from other parts of your infrastructure, like network latency.
Should you want to manually calculate TPS at any point, this helps mitigate most limitations, like inaccurate timing or lacking control over which requests to include. Each request includes the start time and duration, making it possible to e.g. exclude requests initiated but not completed within the time period.
Including Transactions-per-Second in CI/CD
Leveraging production traffic replication enables load generation in any environment—like staging or development—that simulates production. Running a traffic replay during CI/CD runs, you can set and validate specific TPS goals.
With the TPS being a reported metric in the traffic replay report, this goal can then be validated programmatically with
$ speedctl analyze report f4f7a973-xxxx-xxxx-b316-2f6a6d671c62 | jq '.status' "Passed"
The Importance of Transactions-per-Second
In summary, understanding TPS is crucial for gauging service and infrastructure performance. Though the TPS calculation formula is straightforward, complexities may arise without the right tools, or not considering the factors affecting the measurement.
In Kubernetes, the flexible nature of the platform allows for deeply integrated solutions like sidecars to capture requests as they happen, ensuring precise and accurate feedback on your system’s performance. Outside of TPS, this implementation can prove useful in various testing scenarios like regression testing or continuous performance testing.