https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #24 from Philippe Mouawad <p.moua...@ubik-ingenierie.com> 2011-12-11 15:08:19 UTC --- >From Rainer Jung on dev list: I did a simple test using a very small file (2 bytes) to mostly check per request overhead. I let it run with 10 threads for a total of 200.000 samples and only took the last 20.000 samples to calculate results. Configuration was default, JVM was 1.6.0_29, System was Solaris Sparc with 2 CPUs for JMeter and Apache on a separate one CPU system. CPU was not saturated, bandwidth neither. Those tests showed: - results for HttpClient3.1 and HttpClient4 are about the same - results for JMeter 2.4, 2.5.1 and 2.5.2-dev are about the same - response times measured with HttpClient are between 52% and 59% of the old Java Sampler - wallclock time needed for the 20.000 samples was only 0.3% to 2.2% bigger than the sum of the response times, so overhead is minimal - overhead, though minimal was about 2% for HttpClient and about 0.5 for the old Java sampler. Overall it is a big difference, but both numbers are pretty small. - since overhead is small, throughput in requests per second behaves roughly like average response time, namely about 740 requests per second for HttpClient and about 400-440 for the old Java sampler. So throughput is about 70% better for the newer samplers. - CPU was higher for HttpClient, but only about 50-60%, so relative to throughput (per request) it was a bit lower. "about the same" means differences were smaller than variability of test runs, always less than 10%. It could be, that the test results will be very different, for bigger response sizes, KeepAlive turned off, real live tests with cookies etc. etc. At least the base line looks good and I don't see a relevant difference between 2.4 and 2.5.x. Regards, Rainer -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
