API for serving values from the Fibonacci sequence.
If you have go installed, you can clone the repo, build it, and run it.
git clone [email protected]:macintoshpie/fibapi.git &&
cd fibapi &&
go build . &&
./fibapi -port 8080
Use a GET request to any of the following endpoints. A JSON response is provided:
"index": (uint32) index of API request
"value": (string) value of fibonacci sequence at index
Get current index and value
Increment index and get the value
Decrement index and get the value
The server is a basic net/http server, all in main.go. Atomic methods are used for manipulating the current index, and the json encoder for writing responses. The api supports recovery by occasionally writing the current index to a file, which it attempts to read on each startup. Debugging endpoints were added to get info about the cache as well as profiling info.
A few different caches were tried including fastcache, hashicorp's lru, and a simple slice. After doing some profiling, it was determined the slice was more performant.
For the caching strategy, I decided that only caching the "result values" (those returned in API response) was a problematic approach. For example, if our cache holds n values and we've made k calls, k >> n, to the /next endpoint we'd have the n most recent values in cache. If we then make n calls to /previous, any following calls to /previous will result in a full cache miss and the value must be calculated. This could be very expensive if our current index is a very high number.
I thought the best approach would be to cache values in pairs because you only need fib(i) and fib(i-1) to calculate any of the following values. As a result, the cache is more resistent to "holes" in the sequence that would otherwise require calculating a value from the beginning. All that's required is searching for the largest index cached that's less than your index and you can start from there.
I also added cachePadding so that values could be cached at intervals rather than every single one. This reduces memory usage by some factor and also gives the cache a higher tolerance for /previous calls, avoiding having to recalculate values all the way from the beginning. The downside is that you'll rarely get direct cache hits, so a bit of computation is still required from some starting pair. I'd be interested in writing some full tests to determine the ideal cache size and cachePadding, but I ran out of time.
I wrote some basic tests in fib_test.go for the fibonacci functionality.
For performance testing, I put the app in a docker container with limited resources (1 CPU, 512mb Memory). I then used wrk, and http_load for load testing. Looking at docker stats to view container resource usage, all tests kept the CPU at 100%, and remained under the 512mb memory limit.
I started a server at index 0, then ran wrk for 90 seconds. My API was able to handle ~1,000 requests per second:
(base) Teds-MacBook-Pro:wrk tedsummer$ ./wrk -t12 -c12 -d90s http://127.0.0.1:8080/next
Running 2m test @ http://127.0.0.1:8080/next
12 threads and 12 connections
Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
Latency 19.94ms 22.63ms 228.14ms 80.45%
Req/Sec 86.46 59.18 470.00 84.84%
92993 requests in 1.50m, 0.86GB read
Requests/sec: 1032.45
Transfer/sec: 9.73MB
(base) Teds-MacBook-Pro:wrk tedsummer$ curl http://127.0.0.1:8080/current
{"index":93005,"value":"3515575...<edited out>"}
This is the worst case for my API since it results in the most cache misses, meaning we have to brute force calculate large values. For this test, I set the starting index to 100,000 (with an empty cache) and hit the /previous endpoint for 90 seconds. It averaged out about 700 requests per second.
(base) Teds-MacBook-Pro:wrk tedsummer$ ./wrk -t12 -c12 -d90s http://127.0.0.1:8080/previous
Running 2m test @ http://127.0.0.1:8080/previous
12 threads and 12 connections
Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
Latency 29.61ms 72.49ms 1.65s 99.01%
Req/Sec 61.97 26.66 220.00 73.28%
65904 requests in 1.50m, 0.87GB read
Requests/sec: 731.52
Transfer/sec: 9.89MB
(base) Teds-MacBook-Pro:wrk tedsummer$ curl http://127.0.0.1:8080/current
{"index":34086,"value":"159668982821...<edited out>"}
Again I set the starting index to 100,000 with an empty cache, then hit /current with wrk for 90 seconds. The results were pretty poor, about 400 rps. This explained below in the Bottlenecks section.
(base) Teds-MacBook-Pro:wrk tedsummer$ ./wrk -t12 -c12 -d90s http://127.0.0.1:8080/current
Running 2m test @ http://127.0.0.1:8080/current
12 threads and 12 connections
Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
Latency 36.44ms 67.20ms 1.31s 99.04%
Req/Sec 38.22 10.79 110.00 70.83%
40876 requests in 1.50m, 821.17MB read
Requests/sec: 453.65
Transfer/sec: 9.11MB
For this test, a random sequence of 1000 requests to each endpoint was used with the http_load tool. Unfortunately http_load doesn't seem to work very well. As a result it reported about 500 requests per second. I really believe these poor results are due to the tool, and that it's probably capable of at least 1000 rps. I'd like to find a better tool for testing multiple URLs (siege seems like a good option).
49134 fetches, 12 max parallel, 1.74852e+06 bytes, in 90.0042 seconds
35.5867 mean bytes/connection
545.908 fetches/sec, 19427.1 bytes/sec
msecs/connect: 1.23999 mean, 4095.29 max, 0.06 min
msecs/first-response: 6.07299 mean, 2380.89 max, 0.926 min
44134 bad byte counts
HTTP response codes:
code 200 -- 49110
Using the debugging endpoints, it was easy to see what was slowing it down. See the top10 below and the next.cpu.svg file (9 sec sample from /next load test)
Showing nodes accounting for 2960ms, 89.97% of 3290ms total
Dropped 48 nodes (cum <= 16.45ms)
Showing top 10 nodes out of 56
flat flat% sum% cum cum%
1080ms 32.83% 32.83% 1080ms 32.83% math/big.mulAddVWW
650ms 19.76% 52.58% 650ms 19.76% math/big.subVV
310ms 9.42% 62.01% 2210ms 67.17% math/big.nat.divLarge
280ms 8.51% 70.52% 280ms 8.51% math/big.divWVW
200ms 6.08% 76.60% 200ms 6.08% syscall.Syscall
150ms 4.56% 81.16% 2690ms 81.76% math/big.nat.convertWords
150ms 4.56% 85.71% 150ms 4.56% time.now
50ms 1.52% 87.23% 50ms 1.52% encoding/json.(*encodeState).string
50ms 1.52% 88.75% 50ms 1.52% internal/poll.runtime_pollSetDeadline
40ms 1.22% 89.97% 40ms 1.22% math/big.greaterThan
Converting the big.Ints into strings was the most costly operation.
After running some tests, I found that writing []byte could be more than 2x faster and implemented my own basic addition on the slices. But in the end my method of adding digits was too slow so I had to scrap it.
I think the solution to this problem could be a smarter implementation of the []byte storing and addition, but I'd have to take a deeper look at go's big.nat implementation to see how they accomplish fast addition.