On 4 April 2011 00:39, wrote:
> Author: milamber
> Date: Sun Apr 3 23:39:56 2011
> New Revision: 1088442
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1088442&view=rev
> Log:
> Add HTTPClient 4 jars libraries for the binary distribution
Well spotted!
> Modified:
> jakarta/jmeter/trunk/build.xml
On 4 April 2011 00:13, wrote:
> Author: milamber
> Date: Sun Apr 3 23:13:09 2011
> New Revision: 1088435
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1088435&view=rev
> Log:
> Bug 50170 - Bytes reported by http sampler is after GUnZip
> Add an optional property to allow change the method to get res
Hello,
Currently I works to add a optional property to get response size (in
bytes) by different methods:
1/ default (responses data size (uncompressed length if gzip)
2/ responses headers length + default (response data size)
2/ responses headers length + content-length value (real size if gzip)
Thanks Sebb. This is what I have done created a new field in the file log that
contains nanoSeconds
and reported from the sampler is the user selects it.
Ben
On 3 Apr 2011, at 10:28, sebb wrote:
> On 3 April 2011 08:32, Ben Cuthbert wrote:
>> I see the nanotime. But the time in the sampler resu
I've talked with BEA's JRockit team in the past regarding the
differences in Nano time on different platforms.
Given these issues, using nano time in JMeter is difficult at best.
>From what I am told by Henrik stahl, making nano time reliable and
performant isn't trivial, so using it to measure pe
That reminds me -
Tests I've done on Windows show that nanoTime() drifts considerably
when compared with currentTimeMillis(), i.e. its clock does not appear
to run at the same rate.
Here's a simple test you can run:
public class NanoDrift {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Inter
Another important thing to consider is that nano time costs a lot more
than System.currentTimeMillis().
I've done some benchmarking in the past and nano time costs 30% on
windows. On linux, the cost is higher due to differences in how it's
implemented.
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:28 AM, sebb wrote:
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On 3 April 2011 08:32, Ben Cuthbert wrote:
> I see the nanotime. But the time in the sampler results is reported in ms. So
> when you have you data
> it just says 0. I would like it to go one further and report a low level.
Sorry, that's not possible currently.
Changing the elapsed time to nano
I see the nanotime. But the time in the sampler results is reported in ms. So
when you have you data
it just says 0. I would like it to go one further and report a low level.
Regards
On 2 Apr 2011, at 16:18, sebb wrote:
> On 31 March 2011 19:41, Ben Cuthbert wrote:
>> All
>>
>> I have been lo
11 matches
Mail list logo
