https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258
--- Comment #11 from Sebb <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Philippe Mouawad from comment #10) > (In reply to Sebb from comment #9) > > (In reply to Philippe Mouawad from comment #8) > > > Hi sebb, > > > Just to illustrate, first question now on stackoverflow: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/jmeter > > > > > > Jmeter freezes with a CPU of 100% > > > > > > > > > Search in it and on our mailing list, I bet you give tens of entries > > > > Yes, there probably are. > > There are lots of entries about other common problems which would be solved > > if people read the manual. > > Yes, but if we can make it OOTB then why not Because of the disadvantages. > > > > I agree that if we can make a simple change to JMeter that makes it easier > > to use and does not compromise performance then we should consider doing it. > > > > However in this case any changes are likely to be intrusive, so the > > trade-off is not worth it. > > I don't share this opinion. Are you saying that the changes are not intrusive, or that even though they are intrusive, it's worth the disadvantages? > > > > Also, the test will still reach saturation earlier than it would do if they > > had not used the Listener, so they are then going to complain that JMeter > > does not scale. > > But that won't be true. On the contrary, it is true that using one of these Listeners will reduce the max throughput that JMeter can achieve. Maybe not in all tests, but it will be important in some. Using extra storage can affect the max possible throughput. Using extra processing to implement the limiting also affects the max throughput. > While currently saying that JMeter does not scale > with GUI Mode + View Results Tree is not strictly wrong. Not sure what that means. > > >I think it's just postponing the problem. > > > As a conclusion , maybe Vladimir has a brilliant idea that could help here. Maybe. > If not then I suggest 2 options: > - We use my patch and accept drawback -1 > - We use your option (drop additional sampler) AND add a warning message on > GUI to say that this is in place Even though I suggested it, I don't think it's a viable idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
