--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess bugzilla would be best in this case, I'll > do > > that. In a sense it's unfortunate that the jmx > files > > can't be discussed right here since this is a user > > group and users seem to have many questions about > the > > jmx since the jmx is everything. > > By all means discuss JMeter test plans, but posting > anything more than > a very short extract is counter-productive IMO. > > The only easy way to "read" the files is to load > them into JMeter, and > that is not at all easy to do from a mailgroup > posting. > > Even extracts from jmeter log files are difficult to > read when posted > in an e-mail because of the line-wrapping that > occurs. > > > Jmeter is the jmx from a user perspective. > > > > >
> > > > It is possible, but what's the alternative for > > recursing over links on pages? I tried using the > > feature in the HTTP Request sampler to get only > > "Embedded URLs must match" regex but that was too > > limiting. Can you describe in greater detail how > > complex a regex can go into that field? > > As complex as you like, but of course that may > increase the resources > needed to process it. > > > Would something like this work? > > href="([^"]+)"|img="([^\s]+)"|imgurl="([^\s]+)" > > What are you trying to achieve? Trying to match as many embedded url types as possible. Will that work? > > > I think you get the idea, there are more than one > type > > of embedded url I'm interested in traversing > further. > > > > I also tried http://.+/.+ but that didn't work, > but I > > would have thought that would have solved the > issue. > > Maybe it's a missing feature/bug. > > The Link Parser only produces useful output when it > finds a link. If > there is no link in the previous page, it will not > update the current > sampler. So if the regex is "one or more of something" than I should never see it trying to do a GET http://.+/.+ right? Or is something else at play here? > > > In regexdom it's a bad idea to use .*, it should > be > > used sparingly. > > It's only a problem where there is trailing context, > as that causes > back-tracking. > > .* with nothing after it is OK, but .*?; would be > better as [^;]*; > > Same for .+. > > > > > > > > > Another issue is using 1000 threads with 1 loop > just > > > does not make sense. > > > > Does not make sense in general or just to you? It > > makes sense to me. I would have used 10,000 but > the > > jvm is a bit hungry with memory. There may be > some > > tuning still needed. Stack size, etc. > > > > Imagine that each loop does more than one thing. > > > > But given the ramp-up time, the threads don't run in > parallel. Even > with a very short ramp-up time it's likely that the > earlier threads > will have finished before the later ones start. > > Better to run a few threads (or one thread) multiple > times. Better for what? Better's loaded with context. Not every test is a onesy-twosy affair. Sometimes people want 10,000 threads in parallel hammering a website or service. It happens that way. Better to find out sooner if it's going to fall over. > > A single thread can represent multiple users. Yes and many threads can represent a single user. > > Multiple threads are normally used to represent > multiple concurrent users. That too, yeah the test is many users in parallel, traversing a website. It happens that way. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
