G'day,
I was initially sending SOAP requests via a SOAP sampler. That worked fine with sampler response times of normal granularity. Then I changed to sending the SOAP requests through a Java sampler to give me more flexibility in customising the SOAP statement per sample. Procedurally this works fine but the sample response times have a granularity of about 1 second in the associated listener. A single execution of the test plan executes the Java sampler with 15 different SOAP statements. It is statistically unlikely that they all have a base response time very close to an integer number of seconds given that individual response times span are between 2 and 7 seconds. I did a bit of experimentation and the issue is in the granularity of the time returned by System.currentTimeMillis() - every call within the Java sampler returns a time of an integer number of seconds, plus or minus a few 1/1,000's of a second. I tried using System.nanoTime() instead of System.currentTimeMillis() in the Java sampler but the result was just the same. I also looked inside the JMeter code of a sampler and it uses System.currentMillisecs() so its not like it is doing anything different from my Java sampler. I don't believe the issue is in any Windows or Java system setting because I can run my Java sampler and a simple standard JMeter HTTP sampler consecutively in a test plan and the Java sampler shows a granularity around 1 second and the HTTP sampler shows a much finer granularity. The results are tabulated below. Add-customer-n is the nth SOAP request. All the HTTP requests were to the same page so the response times will be similar. Anybody have any suggestions ? 1 15:52:10.176 TG1 1-1 Add customer-1 2016 true 3208 2 15:52:12.223 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 500 true 4509 3 15:52:12.723 TG1 1-1 Add customer-2 2016 true 3208 4 15:52:14.739 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 343 true 4509 5 15:52:15.082 TG1 1-1 Add customer-3 5031 true 9046 6 15:52:20.129 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 328 true 4509 7 15:52:20.473 TG1 1-1 Add customer-4 5015 true 9100 8 15:52:25.488 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 344 true 4509 9 15:52:25.832 TG1 1-1 Add customer-5 4016 true 3224 10 15:52:29.848 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 343 true 4509 11 15:52:30.191 TG1 1-1 Add customer-6 2016 true 2322 12 15:52:32.207 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 344 true 4509 13 15:52:32.551 TG1 1-1 Add customer-7 2015 true 2322 14 15:52:34.566 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 344 true 4509 15 15:52:34.910 TG1 1-1 Add customer-8 5062 true 22764 16 15:52:39.972 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 360 true 4509 17 15:52:40.332 TG1 1-1 Add customer-9 4015 true 6030 18 15:52:44.347 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 344 true 4509 19 15:52:44.691 TG1 1-1 Add customer-10 7015 true 6025 20 15:52:51.706 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 407 true 4509 21 15:52:52.113 TG1 1-1 Add customer-11 5062 true 21044 22 15:52:57.191 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 328 true 4509 23 15:52:57.519 TG1 1-1 Add customer-12 5015 true 6025 24 15:53:02.534 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 344 true 4509 25 15:53:02.878 TG1 1-1 Add customer-13 4016 true 6025 26 15:53:06.894 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 343 true 4509 27 15:53:07.237 TG1 1-1 Add customer-14 5016 true 9113 28 15:53:12.253 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 344 true 4509 29 15:53:12.597 TG1 1-1 Add customer-15 6046 true 18909 30 15:53:18.659 TG1 1-1 HTTP Request 328 true 4509 Ian Blavins Contract Performance Engineer Temenos This email (and any attachments) contains confidential information, and is intended only for the named recipient. Distribution or copying of this email by anyone other than the named recipient is prohibited. If you are not the named or intended recipient, please notify TEMENOS or the sender immediately and permanently destroy this email (and any attachments) and all copies of it. No member of TEMENOS Group AG or any of its associated or affiliated companies is liable for any errors or omissions in the content or transmission of this email. Any opinions contained in this email are solely those of the author and, unless clearly indicated otherwise in writing, are not endorsed by any member of TEMENOS Group AG or any of its associated and affiliated companies.
