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 Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:57:21 GMT
On 30 June 2015 at 23:46, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> 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

I don't understand the usability issue.
How is it less usable than an unique ID?

>> > 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

OK, true.

>> > 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

The thread group names are already quite complicated; does it make
sense to extend them further?

Would it not be better to have a separate field with the server id?
This could be the hostname plus an instance number, or it could be an
id that is not related to the hostname.
But I suspect that users will need to know which samples come from each host.

This would make it easier to identify which records come from each
server instance.
Otherwise the group name will have to be split into separate parts for analysis.

>>
>> > Thoughts ?
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards.
>> > Philippe M
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.

Mime
View raw message