I am running a JMeter test with 20 concurrent users (use kee alive is enabled). All 20 users with different login ids trying to login (1st test) and create a record(2nd test). While creating a record i observed most of the create records has connect time of '0' but certain records (say 5/20) has connect time of 21000 ms, so due to that elapsed time of 5 requests alone is so high compared to other 15 requests. Why its happening for 5 users alone ?
We don't know, according to JMeter Glossary
Connect Time. JMeter measures the time it took to establish the connection, including SSL handshake. Note that connect time is not automatically subtracted from latency. In case of connection error, the metric will be equal to the time it took to face the error, for example in case of Timeout, it should be equal to connection timeout.
So it's more a network metric which indicates how long did it take for JMeter to establish connection with the server.
You need to check:
Your network adapter statistics, it might be the case it doesn't have enough bandwidth to send 20 concurrent requests
Your application connection pool settings, for example if it has 15 connections in the pool the remaining 5 will be put into queue and wait until a connection becomes available.
Check your server baseline health metrics like CPU, RAM, etc. (it can be done using JMeter PerfMon Plugin) as it might be the case your server lacks resources to serve all connections at the same time
Make sure to follow JMeter Best Practices as it might be the case JMeter is overloaded and cannot send requests fast enough
Related
so my requirement is to run 90 concurrent user doing mutiple scenario (15 scenario)simultenously for 30 minutes in virtual macine.so some of the threads i use concurrent thread group and normal thread group.
now my issue is
1)after i execute all 15 scenarios, my max response for each scenario displayed very high (>40sec). is there any suggestion to reduce this high max response?
2)one of the scenario is submit web form, there is no issue if submit only one, however during the 90 concurrent user execution, some of submit web form will get 500 error code. is the error is because i use looping to achieve 30 min duration?
In order to reduce the response time you need to find the reason for this high response time, the reasons could be in:
lack of resources like CPU, RAM, etc. - make sure to monitor resources consumption using i.e. JMeter PerfMon Plugin
incorrect configuration of the middleware (application server, database, etc.), all these components need to be properly tuned for high loads, for example if you set maximum number of connections on the application server to 10 and you have 90 threads - the 80 threads will be queuing up waiting for the next available executor, the same applies to the database connection pool
use a profiler tool to inspect what's going on under the hood and why the slowest functions are that slow, it might be the case your application algorithms are not efficient enough
If your test succeeds with single thread and fails under the load - it definitely indicates the bottleneck, try increasing the load gradually and see how many users application can support without performance degradation and/or throwing errors. HTTP Status codes 5xx indicate server-side errors so it also worth inspecting your application logs for more insights
I am doing a project where I need to send device parameters to the server. I will be using Rasberry Pi for that and flask framework.
1. I want to know is there any limitation of HTTPS POST requests per second. Also, I will be using PythonAnywhere for server-side and their SQL database.
Initially, my objective was to send data over the HTTPS channel when the device is in sleep mode. But when the device (ex: car) wakes up I wanted to upgrade the HTTPS to WebSocket and transmit data in realtime. Later came to know PythonAnywhere doesn't support WebSocket.
Apart from answering the first question, can anyone put some light on the second part? I can just increase the number of HTTPS requests when the device is awake (ex: 1 per 60 min in sleep mode and 6 per 60sec when awake), but it will be unnecessary data consumption over the wake period for transmission of the overhead. It will be a consistent channel during the wake period.
PythonAnywhere developer here: from the server side, if you're running on our platform, there's no hard limit on the number of requests you can handle beyond the amount of time your Flask server takes to process each request. In a free account you would have one worker process handling all of the requests, each one in turn, so if it takes (say) 0.2 seconds to handle a request, your theoretical maximum throughput would be five requests a second. A paid "Hacker" plan would have two worker processes, and they would both be handling requests, to that would get you up to ten a second. And you could customize a paid plan and get more worker processes to increase that.
I don't know whether there would be any limits on the RPi side; perhaps someone else will be able to help with that.
In my application when i execute 2000 virtual users in thread(No: of threads) for 1 http request my response time was 30 sec , when i changed no of threads to 500 and instead of 1 http request I put 4 copies of same http request, RESPONSE TIME WAS 3 SEC . What is the difference? Is it the right way to reduce no of threads and increasing replicas of request? please help
Note: In each reqest i have changed the user id also
In terms of HTTP Request samplers your test must behave exactly like real browser behaves so artificially adding more HTTP Requests may (and will) break the logic of your workload (if it is in place).
In your case high response time seems to be caused by incorrect JMeter configuration, i.e. if JMeter is not properly configured to high load it simply will not be able to fire requests fast enough resulting in increased response time while your server will just be idle.
2000 threads sounds like quite a big number so make sure to:
Follow JMeter Best Practices
Follow recommendations from 9 Easy Solutions for a JMeter Load Test “Out of Memory” Failure especially these:
Increase JVM Heap size allocated for JMeter
Run your test in non-GUI mode
Remove all the Listeners from the Test Plan
Monitor baseline OS health metrics on the machine where JMeter is running (CPU, RAM, Disk, Network usage). You can use JMeter PerfMon Plugin for this. If you will notice the lack of any of the aforementioned resources, i.e. usage will start exceeding, say, 90% of total available capacity - JMeter is not acting at full speed and you will need to consider Distributed Testing.
To extend #Dmitri T answer, If your server response 10 times more on load, as you execute 2000 virtual users, it means there's a bottleneck that you need to identify.
Read JMeter's Best Practices
consider running multiple non-GUI JMeter instances on multiple machines using distributed mode
Also check Delay Thread creation until needed checkbox in Thread Group
JMeter has an option to delay thread creation until the thread starts sampling, i.e. after any thread group delay and the ramp-up time for the thread itself. This allows for a very large total number of threads, provided that not too many are active concurrently.
And set Thread Group Ramp-up to 2000
Start with Ramp-up = number of threads and adjust up or down as needed.
Trying to build a TCP server using Spring Integration in which keeps connections may run into thousands at any point in time. Key concerns are regarding
Max no. of concurrent client connections that can be managed as session would be live for a long period of time.
What is advise in case connections exceed limit specified in (1).
Something along the lines of a cluster of servers would be helpful.
There's no mechanism to limit the number of connections allowed. You can, however, limit the workload by using fixed thread pools. You could also use an ApplicationListener to get TcpConnectionOpenEvents and immediately close the socket if your limit is exceeded (perhaps sending some error to the client first).
Of course you can have a cluster, together with some kind of load balancer.
I'm implementing a websocket-secure (wss://) service for an online game where all users will be connected to the service as long they are playing the game, this will use a high number of simultaneous connections, although the traffic won't be a big problem, as the service is used for chat, storage and notifications... not for real-time data synchronization.
I wanted to use Alchemy-Websockets, but it doesn't support TLS (wss://), so I have to look for another service like Fleck (or other).
Alchemy has been tested with high number of simultaneous connections, but I didn't find similar tests for Fleck, so I need to get some real info from users of fleck.
I know that Fleck is non-blocking and uses Async calls, but I need some real info, cuz it might be abusing threads, garbage collector, or any other aspect that won't be visible to lower number of connections.
I will use c# for the client as well, so I don't need neither hybiXX compatibility, nor fallback, I just need scalability and TLS support.
I finally added Mono support to WebSocketListener.
Check here how to run WebSocketListener in Mono.
10K connections is not little thing. WebSocketListener is asynchronous and it scales well. I have done tests with 10K connections and it should be fine.
My tests shows that WebSocketListener is almost as fast and scalable as the Microsoft one, and performs better than Fleck, Alchemy and others.
I made a test on a Windows machine with Core2Duo e8400 processor and 4 GB of ram.
The results were not encouraging as it started delaying handshakes after it reached ~1000 connections, i.e. it would take about one minute to accept a new connection.
These results were improved when i used XSockets as it reached 8000 simultaneous connections before the same thing happened.
I tried to test on a Linux VPS with Mono, but i don't have enough experience with Linux administration, and a few system settings related to TCP, etc. needed to change in order to allow high number of concurrent connections, so i could only reach ~1000 on the default settings, after that he app crashed (both Fleck test and XSocket test).
On the other hand, I tested node.js, and it seemed simpler to manage very high number of connections, as node didn't crash when reached the limits of tcp.
All the tests where echo test, the servers send the same message back to the client who sent the message and one random other connected client, and each connected client sends a random ~30 chars text message to the server on a random interval between 0 and 30 seconds.
I know my tests are not generic enough and i encourage anyone to have their own tests instead, but i just wanted to share my experience.
When we decided to try Fleck, we have implemented a wrapper for Fleck server and implemented a JavaScript client API so that we can send back acknowledgment messages back to the server. We wanted to test the performance of the server - message delivery time, percentage of lost messages etc. The results were pretty impressive for us and currently we are using Fleck in our production environment.
We have 4000 - 5000 concurrent connections during peak hours. On average 40 messages are sent per second. Acknowledged message ratio (acknowledged messages / total sent messages) never drops below 0.994. Average round-trip for messages is around 150 miliseconds (duration between server sending the message and receiving its ack). Finally, we did not have any memory related problems due to Fleck server after its heavy usage.