Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-jmeter-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8213 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2006 01:30:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Dec 2006 01:30:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 99002 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2006 01:30:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-jmeter-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 98476 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2006 01:30:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jmeter-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "JMeter Users List" Reply-To: "JMeter Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list jmeter-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 98465 invoked by uid 99); 14 Dec 2006 01:30:13 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:30:13 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of woolfel@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.171] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:30:02 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 32so319641ugm for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:41 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=krQqO757y82dFXlBXy4bzj0rJRfkScNAWIoR3Mo85ZzK4fvW8KEJ4qnD8XN58gUOVAv2TP7r4TCl1dTXEoIDflWyOce2bod2tHt5Pa4iRi2iLuCwWA8Xto0Ze915TWhzSyrl9/A94umnxpDkwH4PdEgE7CeEbEF2eYekewYcfTw= Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr473941ugm.1166059781296; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.222.15 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <27e674a90612131729v5bcd0e77k4730615c495fefb7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:29:41 -0500 From: "Peter Lin" To: "JMeter Users List" Subject: Re: Throughput in Aggregate report In-Reply-To: <7865207.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_172638_25880799.1166059781012" References: <7865207.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_172638_25880799.1166059781012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline jmeter will measure the requests per second. that isn't the same as pages per second for a couple of reasons. 1. a page may have multiple images and stuff embedded 2. images are cached by the browser the first time it's loaded 3. not every page is the same, so page per second a poor measurement of load 4. bytes per second or requests per second is a better measurement 5. what happens when the pages change and a page ends up having more images? loadRunner is a good product. Pages downloaded per second isn't all that useful from a capacity and planning perspective. It is much better to measure bytes/second and requests/second. my bias opinion. peter On 12/13/06, rmiller wrote: > > > We use Pages Downloaded per Second as a performance metric in LoadRunner. > In > side by side tests with LoadRunner and JMeter there dosen't seem to be any > correlation between that metric in LoadRunner and Throughput in JMeter. > Can > someone please explain how to get the eaquivalent metric in JMeter? > > Regards, > Ron > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Throughput-in-Aggregate-report-tf2817925.html#a7865207 > Sent from the JMeter - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-user-help@jakarta.apache.org > > ------=_Part_172638_25880799.1166059781012--