On 20 October 2011 18:14, Adrian Speteanu <asp.ad...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey David, > > I've used both. > > Its not much to compare :). If you understand the Constant Throughput Timer, > then you understand both and it's easy to see that its major limitation is > that it holds (if possible) the throughput constant at the value you define > (which was the intent). However if you want to easily create a more complex > test scenario like:
The "constant" can also be varied. If the constant is expressed as a variable or function reference, that allows the throughput to be varied at will. See for example: http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/usermanual/best-practices.html#beanshell_server > 1. run a test with throughput 100 for 2 min > 2. continue for 2 more minutes with throughput 200 > 3. continue for 2 more minutes with throughput 500 > to see how the application responds to these changes in the load received, > without the plugin you had to use more thread groups and configure the > scheduling so you get the same effect. The plugin makes these use cases > simple and more easy to understand. > > You can make things a lot more complicated than that if you'd like using > both methods and a lot of imagination. > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:19 AM, David Luu <manga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I was wondering if anybody has used both, and wonder how they compare. >> Pros/cons of each. >> >> And how one could best simulate the Throughput Shaping Timer with the >> constant throughput timer via variable/property that defines the throughput >> and changing it during test run. Particularly how would you implement the >> changing of the throughput variable and where to place in test plan. >> >> FYI, I'm refering to this JMeter plugin: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/jmeter-plugins/wiki/ThroughputShapingTimer >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-user-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-user-h...@jakarta.apache.org
