Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB472004F1 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id BC381169003; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E85C169001 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:40:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 43200 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2017 13:40:41 -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 43186 invoked by uid 99); 30 Aug 2017 13:40:40 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:40:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 36ACCC500E for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:40:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.379 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IHLqU-Bq92GD for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f49.google.com (mail-lf0-f49.google.com [209.85.215.49]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id CA46861020 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:40:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a126so24789273lfa.0 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:40:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YA3WOro29tjZnzQnr9K5Cbhc6Zy1J2ruPxco4OQkVP8=; b=EqiH36ETOWvKaACAvBbyh5W+njvE3Cjgq88opp6UFZrXs5BgP4WwCOobc1irb9XIZr AN+0ftq0Mhzb85oZG5TMK9Pz6Z3CFAjiOb9I+nHTzJj50hjAtyGMXMmY5cvng1l5rFE8 r2CypciP9Ou7I/FJDBtG8pPDxKFE8KFQ6/leBfodwKWTDBrew+JEkdkcOU1F6FGNnl6x BCWoI8s7D/LOXoinEwJ+MoZCkL3E+mhLteBxGRs3yFt6T1YtqG7M6R3IN+8s6Gl0TASW jnUeT7NlAl0H8mSvl6bkzCSCSQHN30u/mdafI/OD5ns/XGy5nNTNb0n5fG48c1tQ+WqQ ZZkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=YA3WOro29tjZnzQnr9K5Cbhc6Zy1J2ruPxco4OQkVP8=; b=bikkqTCYY060fJbiotVed/F3EhRmNiIdhi/DF9sB6po0Xxf1+1wC0r7zvMmKLYldQ8 72FbMqp0gdcohwkty50ofsDRT5pZPW8FjdtCnXO1fFbRoB1T1j3tGH+z4PJnm+TYIxBB W59OR8UI8y7hrER2b2MQgOGWttm1EHbh7j4gk+D9DzI6bm0dFaRCw8vtVMKnsnwqAOft y5zAoKcVS8iKU7rnZwhAwR0vjO7yc7JHXy1BSaUs6RPs3ZJlO87XFm/LSy8Gqh01szBY oaUYzrQKifsxLU86tsSX2x/P/9yWBtUHhFAZESawclzsCWws7oC2T5ZE0PZc6zcI2vzy Qs3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5hsWbFKxPox1srSXSpPHbBxWhnQu0XSqJs0U8JYRY9q0CToZCAK mK0bpC/3TbesJ1M4nRlADspOLl8l5OGt X-Received: by 10.46.87.26 with SMTP id l26mr799892ljb.37.1504100438034; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:40:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.179.15.144 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:39:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Emilian Bold Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:39:57 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is there a high level explanation of the JMeter remote execute architecture? To: "JMeter Dev@" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" archived-at: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:40:42 -0000 > Yes, but the main issue is not serialization from client to server on test start, but the reverse side Still, why is the MainFrame added to the test tree? All I could think of is you need the TestStateListener which the MainFrame implements. Do you need any Swing components on the slave side? > But I think there should be better protocols than RMI now Ideally something that needs a single standard port open (443 / HTTPS) on the slave. What kind of effort would such a migration imply? --emi On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Philippe Mouawad wrote: > Hi Emilian, > My answers inline. > > Regards > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017, Emilian Bold wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am looking at two aspects in the JMeter codebase: RMI and serialization. >> >> I don't believe I've ran into a document explaining the architecture >> here, only documents explaining how to configure JMeter as an user. >> >> So, about RMI, the way I see it you have two "channels": >> >> * a control channel where the master starts/stops/provisions the slaves and >> * a results channel where result data is streamed back (which is also >> the most bandwidth intensive) > > > Correct understanding > >> >> Is this correct? What other communications happen between the master and >> slave? > > > None I think about > >> >> Regarding serialization: why is so much serialized? >> >> I saw this line in RemoteStart >> >> > testTree.add(testTree.getArray()[0], gui.getMainFrame()); >> >> and it makes no sense to me to serialize the main frame itself. Maybe >> this is just done because MainFrame implements TestStateListener so >> you actually just want to provide a TestStateListener? > > > Yes, but the main issue is not serialization from client to server on test > start, but the reverse side > >> >> I understand why you would send the model but why the whole GUI? > > > Historical > >> >> I feel there is some historic and architectural info I am missing >> here. Where is the API boundary between the GUI, the model and the >> engine? > > > Should be created. > But I think there should be better protocols than RMI now > >> >> --emi >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.