On 10 May 2016 at 03:02, Oliver Erlewein <oli...@erlewein.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for that. Ill raise it in bugzilla as a CR. > > I tested it with -1 (and -100) and it looks like it executes each thread > once only. Of course that is a 5min high level test so is by no means > exhaustive. But I'm guessing nobody is using that anyway.
When I tried -1 it calculated the delay as negative so did not delay at all. There must be something else in the plan that is causing a problem. Note that using 0 will cause a very high delay and threads will therefore appear to execute once only. > As for the sufficiently high number, I am just unsure how much overhead it > adds. Exactly the same as using it normally. But it should be possible to reduce that. > Cheers Oliver > On 9/05/2016 21:26, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9 May 2016 at 03:54, Oliver Erlewein <oli...@erlewein.net> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have the need to control the throughput on the constant throughput timer >> via a variable. That includes the possibility to switch it off. In a lot > of >> JMeter areas you can do that by passing a negative value (ex. -1). But not >> here. -1 will do one iteration only. > > Huh? > > -1 is not treated specially by the code so why do you think it only > affects a single iteration? > >> Can we change this behaviour? Clearly -1 is not sensible in a constant >> throughput controller so why not use it to skip it's function? > > Feel free to raise a Bugzilla enhancement request. > > But a work-round is to use a sufficiently high value so JMeter won't > need to insert pauses. > >> Cheers >> Oliver > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@jmeter.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@jmeter.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@jmeter.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@jmeter.apache.org
