On 1 July 2015 at 07:34, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 30 June 2015 at 23:46, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected] >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, sebb <[email protected] <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 30 June 2015 at 22:16, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected] >> <javascript:;> >> >> <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? >> >> with my proposal the id is computed and sent by jmeter and as you propose > we can add it as additional column in csv. > While currenly user has to set a different one for each server, so more > configuration and more risk of duplicates. > >>> > 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? > > it is fine also for me > > >> This could be the hostname plus an instance number, or it could be an >> id > > > Id is better for me
Why is an id better? Can you determine which two ids are on the same host? >> that is not related to the hostname. >> But I suspect that users will need to know which samples come from each >> host. > > host is already a field no? Optionally. Would it work for it to be optionally replaced by host+id? >> >> 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. >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.
