On 13 November 2013 21:59, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello sebb, > Shall I commit this development or do we wait for 2.10.1 to be released ?
I am still concerned that this addition is specific to the Redis server. I would much prefer to see a generic solution that can use various different kinds of servers. > When do you plan to commit your devs on keytool ? Sorry, have not been able to spend any time on this recently. > Thank you > Regards > Philippe > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> Hello Sebb, >> My answers below. >> >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2 November 2013 08:28, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > Can I proceed with commit these up coming days ? >>> >>> I'm not sure that the discussion was completed. >>> >>> As far as I can tell, the proposal only suits some types of >>> cloud-based test, and relies on 3rd party servers to hold the data. >>> >> >> No in my opinion if fits many scenarios: >> - Cloud based tests, this one seems to me an important one, as Cloud based >> usage are increasing >> - Distributed tests, even if it is possible to do it with CSV, having the >> data in a remote server is much easier to manage than having to >> split/distribute on servers. Even it is true it requires some skills to >> manage correctly the Redis server >> - Continuous integration tests where also having the data in a centralised >> , remote servers is easier than managing CSVs. In this case Redis server >> plays the same role as a JDBC repository >> - Compared to a database it should perform better for high load tests >> since it's an in-memory repo (although this can be done in SQL databases), >> see http://redis.io/topics/benchmarks >> >> >>> I'm not yet convinced that this is how we should be extending JMeter. >>> >> >> I don't understand this argument, it would be another string for JMeter, >> my implementation is only 2 classes + properties for I18N ? >> >> What do you propose in this case ? >> >> >> >>> > Thanks >>> > Regards >>> > Philippe >>> > >>> > On Monday, October 28, 2013, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013, sebb wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On 28 October 2013 01:26, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On 26 October 2013 20:23, Philippe Mouawad < >>> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> Hello, >>> >>> >> These days Cloud based testing is becoming popular and having to >>> >>> distribute >>> >>> >> test data accross many servers through CSV can become painful if >>> not >>> >>> >> impossible. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Even without Cloud, when using distributed testing you always have >>> to >>> >>> >> replicate your data on all servers, which is a painful manual step. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Shouldn't we introduce a new DataSet more suitable for these use >>> cases >>> >>> ? >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> We could do it in many different ways: >>> >>> >> - Integrate an automatic CSV replicator, this would remain simple >>> and >>> >>> would >>> >>> >> not introduce any tier, but with cloud based it would not >>> horizontally >>> >>> >> scale easily >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > Not sure I follow the scaling argument. The file would only have to >>> be >>> >>> > copied once before the test proper starts. >>> >>> > From then on, the data is accessed locally. >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The scale word was not good, In my thinking the issue is more about >>> >> deploying/copying/splitting the file among nodes or cloud members. A >>> >> centralized access makes it far easier. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > However, with a database, each node will need at least one >>> connection >>> >>> > to the database, and every time more data is needed there will be >>> >>> > network traffic. >>> >>> > Or the database has to be running on the server node. >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Agree, I was not saying anything different. But as I said this can be >>> >> useful for middle or low volume >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> - Use a JDBC DataSet, but we would need to ensure it performs >>> fine, and >>> >>> >> jdbc protocol is not well suited for cloud based deployment (But it >>> >>> could >>> >>> >> also be an interesting feature for Continuous Integration) >>> >>> >> - Use a NOSQL repository (Redis seems to me the best choice) , see >>> >>> this >>> >>> >> high level summary which I find interesting >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> http://www.journaldunet.com/developpeur/outils/comparatif-des-bases-nosql/comparatif-des-bases-nosql-tableau-de-synthese.shtml >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> I have implemented a new Redis (based on Java library for Redis) >>> >>> DataSet >>> >>> >> which I plan to commit if no objection. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> It will introduce 2 new dependencies with Apache License: >>> >>> >> - Jedis (http://code.google.com/p/jedis/) >>> >>> >> - commons-pool >>> >>> > >>> >>> > There is also a dependency on Redis, but I guess that would not be >>> >>> bundled. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> no need to anything else than jedis + commons-pool >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I've just noticed that Redis is provided as source which needs to be >>> >>> built before use. >>> >>> If it's difficult to copy CSV files to cloud nodes, it seems to me >>> >>> it's going to be much harder to install Redis. >>> >>> In which case additional network traffic will be needed to access the >>> >>> database. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also there is no official Windows release. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Thoughts ? >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Is MongoDB not suitable? >>> >>> > We already include a jar for it. >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Mongodb is more document oriented and has another type of use cases. >>> One >>> >> interesting feature of redis is lists where you can pop a line it will >>> not >>> >> be available to next calls, it is suitable for tests that need >>> uniqueness >>> >> accross all nodes. >>> >> >>> >>> >> -- >>> >>> >> Regards. >>> >>> >> Philippe M. >>> >>> >> @philmdot <https://twitter.com/philmdot> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Cordialement. >>> >> Philippe Mouawad. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Cordialement. >>> > Philippe Mouawad. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cordialement. >> Philippe Mouawad. >> >> >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.
