IHttpAsyncHandler vs IHttpHandler Performance

Got into a conversation today with my brother (and tech-blog editor extraordinaire) Justin Smith, about the performance of async vs non-async handlers/pages. Thought it'd be interesting to test out if you only reap the benefits of async handlers/pages when you're passing work off to a webservice or db. So, we're going to test throughput/response time of asnyc vs synchronous Fibonacci calculations.

Note all tests were ran on my localhost using in debug="false" mode, which is very important as with it on test results are completely different. Here are the tests and results:

IHttpAsyncHandler Example and Performance

The TestMethods class at the top was used in both tests.

Performance results for 2000 requests at a concurrency level of 50:

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       1
Processing:     6   31   6.4     30      60
Waiting:        5   31   6.3     30      60
Total:          6   31   6.4     31      60

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%     31
  66%     32
  75%     35
  80%     36
  90%     39
  95%     42
  98%     47
  99%     48
 100%     60 (longest request)

Performance results for 5000 requests at a concurrency level of 50:

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       2
Processing:     5   29   5.7     30      81
Waiting:        5   29   5.7     29      79
Total:          5   30   5.7     30      81

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%     30
  66%     31
  75%     33
  80%     33
  90%     37
  95%     39
  98%     42
  99%     44
 100%     81 (longest request)

Performance results for 5000 requests at a concurrency level of 100:

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       4
Processing:    12   61  11.1     62      88
Waiting:       12   61  11.1     62      87
Total:         12   62  11.1     62      88

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%     62
  66%     66
  75%     68
  80%     69
  90%     75
  95%     80
  98%     83
  99%     85
 100%     88 (longest request)

IHttpHandler Example and Performance

Performance results for 2000 requests at a concurrency level of 50:

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       2
Processing:     6   23   4.6     23      55
Waiting:        6   22   4.6     22      55
Total:          6   23   4.6     23      55

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%     23
  66%     24
  75%     25
  80%     26
  90%     28
  95%     30
  98%     34
  99%     37
 100%     55 (longest request)

Performance results for 5000 requests at a concurrency level of 50:

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       4
Processing:     8   23   4.3     22      52
Waiting:        7   22   4.2     22      52
Total:          8   23   4.3     22      52

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%     22
  66%     24
  75%     24
  80%     25
  90%     27
  95%     30
  98%     36
  99%     40
 100%     52 (longest request)

Performance results for 5000 requests at a concurrency level of 100:

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       5
Processing:     7   47   6.9     45     138
Waiting:        7   46   6.8     45     114
Total:          7   47   6.9     45     138

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%     45
  66%     48
  75%     50
  80%     51
  90%     55
  95%     59
  98%     66
  99%     68
 100%    138 (longest request)

Analysis

So synchronous seems like the way to go-- no real gains on async. The next tests will be for IO bound tasks (web/db calls).