Happened to be not so much work: https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/11/files
Please, review it and point me at any changes needed. Andrey Pokhilko On 11/29/2014 04:06 PM, sebb 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 >>
