Hi,

I don't understand the values in the report.xml. If TS and manager are
on the same computer, how could the [ms] timestamp be different of 0? 

Or is it the timestamp between SUT and the TS or manager? Must I use the
ptpd on manager, TS and SUT? In the doc, it is said that "all systems
that constitute the Test System" must use ptpd, so I didn't start the
daemon the on SUT (and in this case didn't use ptp at all, since TS is
the manager) . But I think I have tried and seen no difference (not sure
anymore...)

I'll try a new test tomorrow with the values you told me...

Regards,

A.





Le jeudi 27 mai 2010 à 18:35 +0100, Buriez, Patrice a écrit :
> Hi Antoine,
> 
> This is really weird, the [ms] timestamp in the report.xml still moves back 
> and forth, while the "YMD HMS.ms" seems correct!
> Because of that transient wrong time reference, the load is increased too 
> often. That's why you got 60 instead of 5.
> 
> Can you do one more try, with InitialSAPS set to an even value, or to any 
> multiple of (StirSteps+1)?
> Please also attach the manager.log file.
> It's OK to run the manager and TS on the same computer.
> 
> Regards,
> Patrice
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Roly [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:14 PM
> To: Buriez, Patrice
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: sipp ims bench
> 
> Hi Patrice,
> 
> I've "svn co" revision 587 and killed ptpd and ntpd. 
> I haven't seen anything weird when I compiled the soft (make rmtl,  ossl
> and mgr as in the doc). 
> 
> The manager and the TS are the same host, so I suppose it's ok to run
> the test without both ntpd and ptpd, but I had to put the MaxTimeOffset
> to 0. 
> I don't know if this can have an important negative impact on the test
> (other than for the time in the report of course).
> 
> I've made several tests today, the results are strange. Almost all tests
> end correctly (i.e. without seg fault, but the results are weird), some
> test ends with a seg fault like in a previous mail.
> 
> Here are the 3 files from the latest test... In this one, the SAPS
> increased more than expected and overloaded sailfin. As you can see in
> the report, the requested load of the first step was 5, but the mean
> value is 60!!! I don't understand why the SAPS increase so much. Gsl is
> working, I think the soft uses that to generate traffic so...
> 
> Obviously there's something wrong, maybe in the way I'm using the bench,
> I don't know... Is it possible it's not working as expected due to the
> very low value I'm using (for initialSAPS, SAPSincreaseAmount,...)? I
> suppose not but... Or because I've only a single TS running on the same
> host than the manager, and without ntpd or ptpd?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> A.
> 
> Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 à 17:54 +0100, Buriez, Patrice a écrit :
> > Hi Antoine,
> > 
> > I investigated the files you sent.
> > The report.xml file suggests that the time reference is moving back and 
> > forth.
> > I see several possible reasons for that:
> > 
> > - Are you running ntpd and ptpd at the same time?
> > If that's the case, kill at least one of them, or even both, and try again.
> > 
> > - The "Segmentation fault" suggests that something is going really bad. May 
> > be the stack got corrupted...
> > Try a "make clean", then "make", and check for errors and warnings. 
> > Anything weird there?
> > 
> > - We might have a regression in IMS Bench SIPp.
> > Get revision 587 and try again with this first version that supports 
> > SailFin:
> >     svn co -r 587 
> > https://sipp.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/sipp/sipp/branches/ims_bench 
> > ims_bench-587
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Patrice
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Antoine Roly [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:12 PM
> > To: Buriez, Patrice
> > Subject: sipp ims bench
> > 
> > Hi Patrice,
> > 
> > Here are the files you asked.
> >  
> > For this test, only one instance of SIPp was running, on the same host
> > that the manager. I suppose this is not a problem. Of course the SUT was
> > another host.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Antoine
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Intel Corporation NV/SA
> > Rond point Schuman 6, B-1040 Brussels
> > RPM (Bruxelles) 0415.497.718. 
> > Citibank, Brussels, account 570/1031255/09
> > 
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation NV/SA
> Rond point Schuman 6, B-1040 Brussels
> RPM (Bruxelles) 0415.497.718. 
> Citibank, Brussels, account 570/1031255/09
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Sipp-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users

Reply via email to