jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Mouawad <>
Subject Re: Introduce connect times for SampleResult?
Date Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:55:23 GMT
Nice, will try to review this we.

On Friday, December 5, 2014, Rainer Jung <> wrote:

> Am 03.12.2014 um 15:15 schrieb Andrey Pokhilko:
>> Happened to be not so much work:
>> Please, review it and point me at any changes needed.
> I didn't review the patch but I patched a 2.12 I'm currently using to
> probe a service and it seems to run well here.
> Regards,
> Rainer
>  On 11/29/2014 04:06 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 29 November 2014 at 12:14, Andrey Pokhilko <> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Many times I see a sence to have connect times measured separately, in
>>>> addition to latency that we have in SampleResult. It is important when
>>>> measuring a time for SSL handshake and DNS resolving, when users want to
>>>> see it separate share in total Response Time.
>>>> Connect time is available as separate metric in Grinder and Yandex.Tank.
>>>> The latter has following details on response time pars: connect, send,
>>>> latency, receive. Sometimes some parts are zero, but at least there is a
>>>> technical possibility to see when it is non-zero. It should be noted
>>>> that full breakdown would be: dns, connect, send, latency, receive.
>>>> Send and receive times are not of great importance, IMO. And I would
>>>> cope with connect time including DNS resolve time. But having connect
>>>> time would add interesting aspect on results.
>>> [I expect DNS resolve time might be very tricky to measure in Java]
>>>  For implementation it will require adding one more property with getters
>>>> and setters to SampleResult, modifying SampleSaveConfiguration and UI
>>>> settings to configure saving, using this new field in HTTP sampler, TCP
>>>> sampler, maybe there are other samplers that can respect this field.
>>> The docs would need to be updated to state whether a sampler supports
>>> the metric or not.
>>>  As separate question I would raise if latency should not include connect
>>>> time, for me it sounds logical, but changes existing behavior.
>>> Connect time is currently included in both latency and elapsed.
>>> The simplest would be to just add connect as a separate time, but not
>>> subtract it from latency or elapsed.
>>> This would allow further analysis without changing behaviour.
>>> Maybe add an option to perform the subtraction.
>>> I don't think we should change the default behaviour.
>>>  Any opinions?
>>> I can see its use and am not against it, but it needs quite a lot of
>>> work to implement fully.
>>>  --
>>>> Andrey Pokhilko

Philippe Mouawad.

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