On 09/05/06, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 09/05/06, Bennett McElwee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> There looks to be a typo in your final calculation -- a "1" has gone
> astray. You wrote:
Oops! Sorry, should have double-checked.
> 1147052782426 > 114705281844
> which is true. But it should be
> 1147052782426 > 1147052818441
Agreed.
> which is not true. I admit that it hurts my eyes to look at these long
> numbers -- I do all my calculations in Excel!
> Here's the correct calculation:
>
> Req 1: end 1147052818441, time 360118, so start 1147052458323
> Req 2: end 1147052854550, time 72124, so start 1147052782426
>
> And note that 1147052782426 < 1147052818441. In other words, req 2 start
> is (considerably) earlier than req 1 end, which should be impossible.
>
> Thanks for looking into it.
The end sample times (in the CSV you sent me) are all in sequence,
which suggests that they are probably correct.
I think there can sometimes be a certain amount of overlap, e.g. if
the sampler does some tidying up after completing the sample, it may
be released to the listener a bit out of sequence. But that is not
happening here.
So it looks as though the sample elapsed time may be suspect. In both
cases, the sample failed. Maybe there is a problem with the way the
timestamps are handled in the Exception cases. I need to take a look
again later.
Could not find anything obvious.
Are you using "follow redirects" or "download embedded resources" ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
