Yes, 300 users should not be a problem as a single JMeter client should be able to handle that.
On 06/06/2008, Michael McDonnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That makes sense. I'll give it a go. (We're pretty sure there's no bottle > neck passing things, they do it every 100 samples, and this is over a 100 > MB/s net. I'm only trying to run 300 users, so they should be able to > perform well over a 10 MB/s > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:27 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In client-server mode, only the test plan is sent from the client to > > the server(s). > > > > Any additional files - e.g. CSV input files - need to be present on > > the server host in the location specified by the test plan. > > > > Sample data is returned to the client, and processed/stored by the client. > > This can become a bottleneck at the client - both for JMeter itself, > > and for the network connection - under high loads. > > > > Data files are best randomised before use. > > Likewise, if you want to run with different data on different hosts, > > then create different data files for each host (but you can use the > > same name). > > > > On 06/06/2008, Michael McDonnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How did you randomize the data from the CSVs? (if I may ask) > > > > > > Also, I'm dealing with a lot of optimistic locking issues which would > > only > > > occur if each csv is doing the EXACT same thing at the exact same time > > > (which is completely likely) > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Ryan Dooley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I had a similar experience the first time. Turns out that the data I > > > > wanted > > > > to test with (HTTP POSTs) has to be put on each remote. I also had a > > > > process to randomize the data when transferred to the remotes. I > > finally > > > > got the load up high enough across 10 machines like yours. > > > > > > > > The test harness I had was pretty simple: post these things to this > > url. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Michael McDonnell < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We're running a distributed test (roughly 7 remote workstations) on > > a > > > > > pretty > > > > > hefty box (8 cores, 32 gigs ram.... etc...) > > > > > > > > > > However, something seems to be going wrong... perhaps its because > > I'm > > > > > crossing linux and windows platforms to try to do the testing? > > > > > > > > > > We're load testing a web application, so primarily, the only work > > we're > > > > > doing is http requests (there are a few "java requests" that > > actually is > > > > an > > > > > app I created to make webservice calls, but we'll get to that later) > > > > > > > > > > However, when we view the transactions in the database, they are > > > > extremely > > > > > low. (frighteningly low). > > > > > > > > > > Then we run the test from a single user work station (same test, 300 > > > > users > > > > > doing work) and our results come back fantastically! > > > > > > > > > > Now granted: I guess the big deal is this: when the app uses a csv > > in > > > > > distributed mode, does each slave utilize the the same csv in the > > same > > > > > order > > > > > ? or is there a sort of "break up" so that no two slaves are using > > the > > > > same > > > > > line in the csv? > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for what may be dumb questions... but we're coming down to > > a > > > > > tight > > > > > deadline, and the distributed testing is not giving us good results > > where > > > > > as > > > > > the local testing is. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for all your help in advance. > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
