Hi Tyson, awesome, we had the same train of thought :). I looked into Gatling as well, mainly because it's in Scala so it'd be easy for us to read and build new scenarios. Gatling also has a Jenkins plugin (we use Jenkins) which makes it very easy to integrate test results.
I also liked how you define a scenario in Gatling and it seemed to fit OpenWhisk quite well, especially when looking at more sophisticated use-cases with different load-patterns. My initial experiments are here: https://github.com/markusthoemmes/gatling-example. I also have a branch somewhere which builds a docker container around the test. That's mainly why I used env variables for configuration. Yes I think we should have those in the openwhisk-performance repo. Eventually Gatling/Locust (have to look at that) tests might even subsume the existing very basic ones. Cheers Markus Am 10. Mai 2017 um 06:46 schrieb Tyson Norris <tnor...@adobe.com.INVALID>: Hi - I spent some time experimenting with gatling and locust.io<http://locust.io> load tests, and wanted to find out if people here have some preference? From my limited usage, some differences are: - gatling has some good facilities for managing complex tests and decent reports with little effort, compared to locust - locust has some distributed testing capabilities (generate load from multiple hosts in a coordinated fashion), but is lighter on report details and test scenario complexity. Branches in my fork are here, I can create pull requests if people are interested in pulling this into the openwhisk-performance repo? https://github.com/tysonnorris/openwhisk-performance/tree/gatling-tests https://github.com/tysonnorris/openwhisk-performance/tree/locust-tests (In each branch I created a separate readme with pertinent details of that test harness, open to merge with main README.md before creating a PR) Its also an option to include both, if people are interested. Thanks Tyson
