Hi, Interesting, +1 for me. By the way it would be nice to have some opinion from all dev team on this: - https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03444.html
AFAIK, only Milamber gave some feedback. Regards Philippe On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 November 2014 at 12:14, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Many times I see a sence to have connect times measured separately, in > > addition to latency that we have in SampleResult. It is important when > > measuring a time for SSL handshake and DNS resolving, when users want to > > see it separate share in total Response Time. > > > > Connect time is available as separate metric in Grinder and Yandex.Tank. > > The latter has following details on response time pars: connect, send, > > latency, receive. Sometimes some parts are zero, but at least there is a > > technical possibility to see when it is non-zero. It should be noted > > that full breakdown would be: dns, connect, send, latency, receive. > > > > Send and receive times are not of great importance, IMO. And I would > > cope with connect time including DNS resolve time. But having connect > > time would add interesting aspect on results. > > [I expect DNS resolve time might be very tricky to measure in Java] > > > For implementation it will require adding one more property with getters > > and setters to SampleResult, modifying SampleSaveConfiguration and UI > > settings to configure saving, using this new field in HTTP sampler, TCP > > sampler, maybe there are other samplers that can respect this field. > > The docs would need to be updated to state whether a sampler supports > the metric or not. > > > As separate question I would raise if latency should not include connect > > time, for me it sounds logical, but changes existing behavior. > > Connect time is currently included in both latency and elapsed. > > The simplest would be to just add connect as a separate time, but not > subtract it from latency or elapsed. > This would allow further analysis without changing behaviour. > Maybe add an option to perform the subtraction. > I don't think we should change the default behaviour. > > > Any opinions? > > I can see its use and am not against it, but it needs quite a lot of > work to implement fully. > > > -- > > Andrey Pokhilko > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
