jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Distributed testing and active threads over time
Date Fri, 03 Jul 2015 05:11:09 GMT
On 1 July 2015 at 21:59, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good idea Andrei indeed.
>
> How do you see it:
>
>    - Would we add a new field called :
>       - jmeter.save.saveservice.injid composed of host:port
>    - Or would we ad jmeter.save.saveservice.port and require users to set:
>       - jmeter.save.saveservice.hostname=true
>       - jmeter.save.saveservice.port=true
>       - And compute the field from this.

I prefer that.

>
> One thing I find a bit bad  is network traffic, as we repeat in batch mode
> (default) this information uselessly
>
> For example for 100 results, we would transmit it 100 times while only 1
> would be better.

In which case the client would need to add the field back before
storing the record.

> Note this applies to other fields like:
> jmeter.save.saveservice.filename=false
>
> But maybe it's another topic related to Network traffic optimization in
> Distributed testing, some ideas:

Yes, that should be a separate discussion.

>    - Switch to Rest WS or Google Protobuf
>    - Only send required data and no more serialized objects
>    - ....
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:24 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 July 2015 at 09:11, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks for this initiative, I felt it painful for jp@gc, for
>> > Loadosophia.org and for my new project Taurus.
>> >
>> > I would solve it with hostname+port pair in SampleResult, as it makes
>>
>> Using port is an excellent idea.
>>
>> Maybe as host:port as that is a standard way of representing them.
>>
>> > easier to map results to originating JMeter servers. Unique ID's would
>> > also solve it, but it will require additional work to match ID back to
>> > server. And ID's are not obvious, so it's bad user experience.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > Andrey Pokhilko
>> >
>> > On 07/01/2015 01:46 AM, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 30 June 2015 at 22:16, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>>> Hello,
>> >>>> When we do distributed testing and need afterwards to analyze
>> results, we
>> >>>> need to know how much threads were running at the some point in
time
>> by
>> >>>> doing aggregation work, as illustrated here:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - http://jmeter-plugins.org/wiki/ActiveThreadsOverTime/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am just illustrating this need by this particular plugin, but
this
>> need
>> >>>> is here whatever plugin or custom code is used to create this graph.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Currently as each server reports his own number of threads, and
this
>> is
>> >>>> then written to a file, we need a way to know that N number of threads
>> >>> are
>> >>>> associated to X server.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I suggest that when a test starts, JMeter client (controller) computes
>> >>> and
>> >>>> sends to each server a unique ID, this id would then be stored by
the
>> >>>> server and accessible under a property or function.
>> >>> What's wrong with storing the hostname?
>> >>>
>> >>>  usability and see below
>> >>>> This way, users would only have to add to their thread group name
this
>> >>>> additional property without any other configuration.
>> >>> Already possible; just use the hostname
>> >>>
>> >>>  Not enough if you have 2 servers on 1 host
>> >>>> Another better options is to even remove the need for users to add
>> this
>> >>>> function / property by appending this information automatically
from
>> the
>> >>>> server in the thread name.
>> >>> I don't understand what you are proposing here.
>> >>
>> >> jmeter client assigns a unique id to each server that the latter uses to
>> >> name thread and appends to thread group value leading to unique values
>> and
>> >> possibility to copite the cumulated number of threads among all servers
>> >>
>> >>>> Thoughts ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Regards.
>> >>>> Philippe M
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.

Mime
View raw message