Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CB79180A9 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 83872 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2016 17:31:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 83841 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2016 17:31:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jmeter.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jmeter.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 83829 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jan 2016 17:31:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:31:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1C0E2C0179 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:31:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.9 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NhU3nXp32zfq for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 69AF320271 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id mw1so18873323igb.1 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:31:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=yJpVyitxN9GjVlPfFzky6gTaTCFIUltynU1NEc+rd/0=; b=gjAAqQApTA7Ch6/u0tlRWvckui2bVOxUQTkD76bhvksRBSvA61rhKefAJj3/US/ZmB uhP+UozY/JjKC50eYWeKTdH6Pru0m4/sP1KlOY0qv6jZY2fGSc2vOFIgjMnHA4LKBMiG ewsLRMkMGRSWhNCg9GvDK2wwiRJYjdra/z5/a/vl45CvAlyT4AlnZVI0e2AtCs2udxqy fO/4lA0y/B5QmXC5AZIwLRn07zdiPpRE9wC8c1+2sKacVxiy9KlY4PdAxXEqY7zQoiG7 8K5SCpmaleskmhm+QN0Pz84DaCbPsFBZTQtBp0D4g/9XrPGrPyv7N0DYn4HSGKXUWo/F cZlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yJpVyitxN9GjVlPfFzky6gTaTCFIUltynU1NEc+rd/0=; b=J4h3gLCJUhQllq4pzHfr55e1iKgnvM15gG0tjAWaqth1sXt+D5iMgiB9Jp7tmHcEgb xpvUsOdFJ7Z3PPp6LoU9sMVr49LEDC06b0fFfcRTG5KaHX/GpCRIuB9D78IfzKzYbVWN CxR1OOGT7HdxDxn1JdZ7ZdmeCiEINJUCucLpUNTqdAWLG1xMo5LWTyRygLDxtuPUBsqb 36hODMyJTt7SL01NIMEjowCA4INlYQYK3maqrt87DYp3hAvib7JPNasKLPevSVwaN8qt KloAS7cZ/WMdDjIsxZMMgiC5jNco3wAbZXipu2xYMxAjsh+4VqCDdD+6dQmWv9R2DLwO nueA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQcpCjTu+Yt0tLj+xFREYfOy/1TTxioT8HxwQlPwJBQ6vD8FXwuf8l+AfJAAhrsLehLMhDnXsm6HFiOPA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.64.180 with SMTP id p20mr7448749igs.14.1454261480878; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:31:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.25.131 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:31:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56AE4245.9080000@internetallee.de> References: <56AE368E.5010000@internetallee.de> <56AE3A28.1010309@internetallee.de> <56AE3F4C.4030805@internetallee.de> <56AE4245.9080000@internetallee.de> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 18:31:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Important Regression in nightly build compared to 2.13 or r1715087 From: Philippe Mouawad To: "dev@jmeter.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf17dd4fa7f2b052aa4a23d --047d7bf17dd4fa7f2b052aa4a23d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Felix, I also thought that at the begining and tried to apply some patches on code. Find them attached at : https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950 Note also I tried using 4.5.2 and uncommented this line in : - HTTPHC4Impl: ((AbstractHttpClient) httpClient).setReuseStrategy(DefaultClientConnectionReuseStrategy.INSTANCE); Regards On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Felix Schumacher < felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote: > Am 31.01.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Felix Schumacher: > >> Am 31.01.2016 um 17:52 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Felix Schumacher < >>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 31.01.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Felix Schumacher < >>>>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 00:31 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>>> I made a real load test today using nightly build and faced an >>>>>>> important >>>>>>> issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are the details: >>>>>>> - Test uses 1000 Threads on 1 Instance >>>>>>> - It uses "Download Embedded Resources" >>>>>>> - Socket Timeout is set to 10s >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No time between the requests? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Variable Time between requests. It is supposed to reproduce user >>>>> website >>>>> activity. >>>>> The timer is not fixed which can harden comparison but I always >>>>> reproduce >>>>> the difference of behaviour between version for all runs. >>>>> >>>>> So how many requests per second do you simulate (roughly)? >>>> >>>> 20 to 30 per second >>> >>> I tried to load test the ROOT webapp of tomcat 8 (without a timed delay) >>>> and did not get any Exceptions. >>>> >>>> Does it mean there is no network ? only locally ? >>>> >>> I am in ideal conditions in term of load testing as I am on a dedicated >>> machine. >>> >> OK. I think I see your problem (even if I don't see the exceptions). >> >> I test a locally running tomcat 8 with 1000 threads running for 1000 >> times one http sampler, which has a gaussian timer that was configured with >> 30000.0 and 300 milliseconds. >> >> Now, if I run it with httpclient4 I get errors after a short period of >> time (about 5 to 10 seconds). No errors, when run with httpclient3. >> > > If I let the test run with one round, only, there is no error. The same is > true, when I disable keep alive. So it seems to be a change in keep alive > handling. > > Regards, > Felix > >> >> >> Regards, >> Felix >> || >> >>> Regards, >>>> Felix >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Is your server capable of serving thousand requests simultaneously? >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, no problem on this side. >>>>>> >>>>> Number of requests per second is not high at all (50 samples included >>>>> Transaction Controller which encapsulate Http Requests ). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>>> Felix >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no overloading of the machine, no impacting GC >>>>>> >>>>>>> Very rapidly, I start getting a lot of errors: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Non HTTP response code: >>>>>>> org.apache.http.conn.ConnectTimeoutException >>>>>>> message:Non HTTP response message: Connect towww.foo.com:80 >>>>>>> timed >>>>>>> out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rate of error varies between 15% and 30%. >>>>>>> Note that if I navigate on the application, I don't face the errors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I ran the same test using exactly the same configuration: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Same machine >>>>>>> - Same JVM version and tuning >>>>>>> - Same user.properties >>>>>>> - Same hc.parameters >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But jmeter r1715087 >>>>>>> And error rate is 0.30%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note the target server has a load balancer that returns a keep-alive >>>>>>> duration set to 2 (2 seconds). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This issue is a blocker one for the release of next version. >>>>>>> I compared code with revision 1715087 and I don't see many changes in >>>>>>> HTTPHC4Impl that would explain this regression. >>>>>>> I commented out some suspects , retried but I get same results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also upgraded to HttpClient 4.5.2 and uncommented the code >>>>>>> expected to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> added, same results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So for now I tend to suspect an issue in HttpClient/Core. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad. --047d7bf17dd4fa7f2b052aa4a23d--