Alex,
Thanks for the informative response! This information really helps clear up all the questions I had about the Flex Stress Framework. Since I really only need to test AMF services I won't get the full advantage of what the Flex Stress Framework provides. However it looks like it will still provide more than adequate load tests against a development server so I am going to give it another try. By the time this gets moved to a production server I should have a good idea of how well the services perform and will make a decision as to doing further load tests using LoadRunner. Thanks again for taking time to shed some light on this subject! Lance From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of aglosband Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Mercury QT Pro - LoaderRunner + Flex Hi Lance, Using the Flex Stress Testing Framework you will probably be able to run around 10 browser instances per client machine. This is going to depend though on the size of your test application and what the test application is doing as well as the specs of the client machines you are using. You may be able to get higher than this. . . say 20 browser instances per client machine but you'd need to test this out. You could do a simple test where you run the framework with a single client machine and see what the CPU and memory usage on the machine is. You can keep increasing the number of browser instances on the machine until the CPU and memory usage is close to being maxed out or the number of requests per second you are getting starts to decrease. I think with 20 - 30 client machines you are probably only going to be able to create a few hundred browser instances. Using test tool lingo, I'll call each browser instance a virtual user. If the test application you are running in the browser is just looping over requests this is going to put more load on the server than an actual user of the system. We usually multipy the number of virtual users by a factor of 10 to get a rough estimate of the number of actual users the system could support. With the Flex Stress test tool, you can probably simulate load of a few thousand users but probably not as much load as it sounds like you are trying to create. As for the test server, the client machines are really doing most of the work so you shouldn't really need a fast machine for this although I guess it would need to meet the minimum system requirements for Flex Data Services. I think you are probably right that LoadRunner is better suited to the type of testing you are doing. I think the Flex Stress Testing Framework is more suited to more complex test scenarios where you are using the Messaging or Data Management Services features of Flex or where you need to do load testing using the RTMP protocol. Hope that helps. -Alex --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Lance Linder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matt, Jun, > > Thanks for the information/heads up. There seems to be little too no information on this subject so it is good news to hear things are on a forward track! > > This week I am going to be in a web seminar that Mercury is putting on and I am sure I will get lots of info about QT Pro. Depending on the out come of that I will get in touch about the beta QT Pro/Flex testing framework. > > So far Mercury's products seem the best fit at this time given there is work towards both functional GUI testing and possible AMF3 support from one vendor. > > Since the services we need to load test are rather simple I am going to look at down grading them to AMF0 so that I can use LoadRunner with them today. I really do like the Flex Stress Testing frame work as well which I took a look at this last Friday and Saturday, however I never did get it to fully work but the idea looks promissing :) I think my biggest concern with it (besides getting it to work) is how many machines I would need to perform a large scale load test (7,000 to 10,000 users with 30-40 small AMF requests each over 3-10 minutes). I am not totally sure if I even have enough machines available to do a test of that size with LoadRunner but I figured it would probably be better suited for a larger scale test like this than Flex Stress Testing Framework. Can anyone from Adobe comment on the performance of the Flex Stress Testing Framework and whether it will scale that high on a dual 3.4ghz 3GB ram box as the test server with 20-30 client machines running as many instances of the test as physically possible? The system it is testing against is a IIS web farm with multiple back end load balanced MS SQL 2005 databases. Since the web farm doesn't have FDS installed it isn't an option to use a portion of it as the Flex Stress Testing server so I will have to rely on other high end workstation for this alone. > > Thanks! > Lance > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Matt Chotin > Sent: Mon 12/4/2006 8:37 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Mercury QT Pro - LoaderRunner + Flex > > We have a beta running for the QTP plugin. You can mail me to get on it > (I need first/last/email) but it will actually be closing down pretty > soon as the release is in early 2007 and that's coming right around the > corner :-) > > > > Mercury is working to get LoadRunner to support AMF3 but I don't know > the timeframe of when that might be available. In the meantime we just > posted the load-testing tool that we use internally on Labs: > http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex_Stress_Testing_Framework > > > > Matt > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of coderjun > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:19 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Mercury QT Pro - LoaderRunner + Flex > > > > Lance, > > From what I've heard through the grapevine, you can request the Quick > Test Pro Flex plugin from Adobe. However I'm not exactly sure who to > contact for it. Maybe someone else in the group has this info or has > received the plugin before? > > In regard to LoadRunner and AMF3 support, I have been working with a > client that had this same question. Basically, the answer from Mercury > tech support was that AMF3 encoding was not supported and the workaround > was for them to downgrade to the AMF0 encoding...which of course is not > an option if your using AMF3-only supported features: > > "AMF3 supports sending int and uint objects as integers and supports > data types that are available only in ActionScript 3.0, such as > ByteArray, XML, and IExternalizable."* > > * Taken from: > http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs/as3preview/langref/flash/net/Obje ctE > ncoding.html > > Here's a link if you! decide to go the AMF0 route: > http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/docs/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html /ww > help.htm?context=LiveDocs_Parts&file=00001105.html > > Also, you can run "AMF" and "object encoding" searches on the Flex 2 > livedocs site for more info. > > Hope that helps some, > Jun > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Lance Linder" <llinder@> wrote: > > > > Anyone using or had success with trying Quick Test Pro with Flex? This > > was something I wanted to evaluate ever since Macromedia/Adobe > announced > > they were working with Mercury back in October of 2005. Since the beta > > release of Flex I really haven't heard anything more about this other > > than some info that there might be better support between the two once > > Flex 2.1 is released. Can anyone comment on this that has tried to use > > Quick Test Pro with Flex 2.0? > > > > > > > &! gt; Also I really really need a good load testing tool and Loa! > dRunner looks > > like the ticket especially since I am already interested in Quick Test > > Pro. Has anyone used LoadRunner with AMF3 or does LoadRunner even work > > with AMF3? Right now I am not so concerned about RTMP but AMF3 is a > > must. It seems that SilkTest from Borland supports AMF3 but I would > > rather stick with a vendor that has both functional GUI test tools and > > load test tools that meet my requirements. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Lance > > >
