You're right, I was simply testing the installation. All the real load testing would be done inside the proxy anyway; but before I started writing my own configuration files, I wanted to be sure the binary had been properly built so I didn't waste hours/days troubleshooting configuration files. I'll probably just build it at home and test it there where I don't need to worry about a proxy.
As for writing test pages, I've certainly got a few hours to do it in PHP if you'd like my help. - john On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 11:11:21PM +0200, Jacek Prucia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:19:58 -0400 (EDT) > Norman Tuttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > John: > > > > To my knowledge, "<proxy>" is not set up to work yet. > > This may be THE problem. If you can, try it without using proxies and this > > <proxy> element. > > Yes. To be honest I don't think we need such functionality in flood. Since all > we care about is web server load testing, it simply doesn't make any sense to > put any obstacles between flood and web server, as this could result in false > output (we would load test proxy, not web server). > > However, I see that John is using plain round-robin.xml from examples > subdirectory, so I assume he is just testing his instalation. Right now this > is done with remote requests, but since we have <baseurl> support, we can > write few pages using virtually every web-based language available (PHP, ASP, > JSP, etc.) and prepare tests for those pages instead of remote sites. This is > just exactly what I have deep down my TODO list... Oh... well... anybody > have few spare hours to sell? ;) > > regards, > -- > Jacek Prucia
