I think it was more than the just the growl tests. The server handled it well irregardless of where the load came from :->
D. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, my Growl client prototype was making requests every 2 seconds > for several hours on Sunday because I forgot to change the long-poll > timeout back to 300 seconds. Also, if requests from it are not > successful it doesn't currently behave very well and just keeps trying > to request messages as fast as its little legs can run. Need to fix > that.... > > Ethan > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Markus Kohler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Dick, >> I'm guilty of course ;-) >> >> I played around with a test which would send messages with several users in >> parallel. It's not fully working yet, but I got some hints in the mean time, >> why it is not. >> I "forgot" to add a log off step, ok I was lazy. That probably explains the >> high number of sessions. The "response time" is very hard to measure for >> ESME because the POST that sends the message is usually very quick, but when >> the message shows up somewhere is hard to detect. >> >> Markus >> "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" -- Alan Kay >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Was anybody doing load tests yesterday on the >>> http://esmecloudserverapache.DickHirsch.staxapps.net instance? >>> >>> I just have a few bits of information since the display of Stax logs >>> is restricted to a certain length. >>> >>> Sessions went from 0 to 40,000 in less than an hour. We also had >>> 1,800 requests in the same time period. Memory was high at 333 MB but >>> CPU utilization was low at 15% during the tests and rose later to 25%. >>> Request time remained low at 20 seconds but this doesn't tell me much >>> since I don't know what requests were being used. >>> >>> D. >>> >> >
