jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AccessLogSampler & Bug 53748
Date Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:26:55 GMT
Hello,
Regarding this issue, I propose to commit it as is for now as it brings
interesting enhancements and it does not degrade the existing feature.

We can improve it in the future.

What's your opinion ? sebb, Milamber , Rainer ?

Thanks
Regards
Philippe


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Enric Jaen <enricjaen@yahoo.es> wrote:

> However, http sessions must  be considered, so a kind of preprocessing is
> still needed to know in advance when the thread can be closed.
> /Enric
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  De: Enric Jaen <enricjaen@yahoo.es>
> Para: "dev@jmeter.apache.org" <dev@jmeter.apache.org>
> Enviado: Jueves 20 de junio de 2013 6:59
> Asunto: Re: Rv: AccessLogSampler & Bug 53748
>
>
>
>
> I see. Right, I didn't realize of the file handler problem.  So yes,  an
> approach like the one you proposed is needed. An approach where and entity
> reads the log file an creates the threads at the corresponding log rate.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
> Para: dev@jmeter.apache.org; Enric Jaen <enricjaen@yahoo.es>
> Enviado: Jueves 20 de junio de 2013 0:14
> Asunto: Re: Rv: AccessLogSampler & Bug 53748
>
>
> On 19 June 2013 20:10, Enric Jaen <enricjaen@yahoo.es> wrote:
> >
> >
> > (sorry if you receive this mail duplicated,  I am having problems
> sending in this mailing list)
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > I see some confusion. With respect the concern that the OS can run out
> of file handles, let me clarify that this sampler doesn't need a  different
> file per thread: The generator reads the access log and creates one new
> access log file. This new file is ordered by IP, and each thread knows its
> correspoding OFFSET inside the file.
> >
>
> Sorry, I realise that "file handle" was ambiguous.
>
> I did not mean entries in the the file system table on disk or in
> memory, I meant the handle to the file used by Java.
> It will still use the same number of open file handles (e,g,
> FileInputStream plus supporting FD etc.) within the JVM.
> Though perhaps some resources can be shared by the JVM if all the
> files are the same, so it might be slightly cheaper than individual
> files.




-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message