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 BB6BF200D69 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:49:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id B9AAD160C23; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:49:13 +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 09225160C10 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:49:12 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 56314 invoked by uid 500); 27 Dec 2017 21:49:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@jmeter.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "JMeter Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list user@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 56303 invoked by uid 99); 27 Dec 2017 21:49:07 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:49:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 96B551A09C7 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:49:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.379 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.379 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, 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: spamd2-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 (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXqvjIL8GhfS for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:49:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot0-f173.google.com (mail-ot0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2A3EE5FAF6 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b56so19913567otd.10 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:04 -0800 (PST) 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=hr+V2zr9Vb9uBFLmy+VoOSdVPELsW0CiWQTA0V5d8WI=; b=VKHDmmNVmlzyN2Q2Jyh7B1u8xL+MGGg1l09e3cjUi1X2/W367N1/XbnW4rqrYP6Z+B hngwXgBvvPGk9IsRonJYU62ksX8OTiAJyiD+K+CSnEoje4BcnmwnKMVDxzdLqKuXCPmh T2h8cWZf81w8hpqv2a1NysBWbHY4nJKV+ouiNa2glFwDd1ihEt2FZ7p/pFRCDVEIcesd z/06cjUV6Vj5GmPqJ2osgECgcnhg1k+6zB9n+BNnpTJ5rmR3G19b0TQnsQ4ocrfGVJ/4 olrYhFbpvD3M1BJZYWBFtBKuyzwgEcveRPfPScWFfDqwhAHpp0y7kr8Fhyi49LHtd3ib dThA== 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=hr+V2zr9Vb9uBFLmy+VoOSdVPELsW0CiWQTA0V5d8WI=; b=lAFs0MNfv2ns6YNI4pqN+q0GHBu2t1MdxqlQMsfSjaJqruDFncdSGrlOLBnhoF/zM9 Zcuco+DV6OsZeKpjApd/nY5RU2guoi+ojxtbXCts4ItvYRQQGPJPAJzXmoEporIfceyO cma7IEwTYIZEit/UhgsX88/y4Ab5Tfc5tdgUPWZjGE1nPPEEguVQGlsjS2D53I7lVPcb 6i2vs/MwIZxCMnOcEaw2i/MoFuesspxJ2IGA6jzFmU++SvqI8VYO/IXW0BM9QCOCZq6/ sSSxp/eZaCw2g3QyRoU/7Htqxf5JW8C8dl5zX0ZBjC6jG4DUBpFCcHKRVZUKWT3rUAnQ cc6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLvw2W127ZLZYI5XxqjJ1OnpL5NwXSLI6Cb3QUAdJMD/UZWaBze Y4VmDIyBZJWirPHlzCkKLT21ctFNtHZlaZbfjQfQJQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovIDYsuVxvnMt4tUzLU/PoB3LLeujY0afBY0/XJNFhu88jFYOrF18G3wQoSQgSbS9w8cLcRpIggrMZ4u2oIxLQ= X-Received: by 10.157.0.74 with SMTP id 68mr4452199ota.303.1514411342625; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.190.8 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Deepak Shetty Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:02 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Gateway Timeout Errors To: JMeter Users List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0328bc1f01ea0561595e03" archived-at: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:49:13 -0000 --94eb2c0328bc1f01ea0561595e03 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >What would be the reason for this Difficult to say , its the app thats behaving badly!. What are the response times you are seeing ? An example of systems that exhibit the behavior you describe are systems that lazily load caches (with synchronized wait behavior for other requests while the cache is being loaded OR all of the other requests also try to load the cache) and hence initial requests take a long time and so for e.g. if your first request is going to take 20 seconds then you will end up with 20 requests waiting (50 users with ramp up of 50 seconds is 1 new request every second). If all are trying to load cache you might even see more as everyone slows down everyone else. By increasing your ramp-up you are reducing the initial load the system sees - But does each thread just run 1 iteration only ? In which case yes , you probably have very little concurrency. Note , for most test scripts , Ramp Up is meant to prevent a burst of requests which may not represent your normal load. Your concurrency *should* be determined by other factors (the duration your test runs after all threads are created , the think times in your script etc). Think about it this way. Say 50 users are sitting doing something on your website - not everyone is actually doing something at the same time - most users will be reading the page for e.g. - but maybe 10 of those click a link at the same time - the concurrency your system sees is approx 10. In your test you might still model this as 50 threads (for 50 users) but create your script such that the system sees about 10 requests at the same time. What the Ramp up controls is that your system doesnt see 50 requests immediately as soon as the test starts . On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Riji K wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm running a 50 User concurrent test with 50seconds RUT on a > web-application, which results in higher number of "Gateway Timeout > Errors". > > With Increasing the ramp-up to 1000 seconds RUT, the errors were not > observed. > > What would be the reason for this. I think 50 seconds ramp-up is > sufficient for the user. Also would i like to know if i give 1000 seconds > ramp-up for 50 user, will be any concurrency.? > > Please help me. > > Regards, > Riji K > --94eb2c0328bc1f01ea0561595e03--