Funny this should come up now. I've been looking into using Radegast at work to perform some load testing. I've created a plugin that listens for commands on the chat channel, and then has the avatar perform them.
Here is the currently supported list of commands walk here - walk towards avatar issuing command walk randomly - pick a new direction every second and move in that direction stop walking - self explanatory teleport <regionname> - teleports listening avatar to <regionname> Commands to be implemented: Sit Stand Follow <avatar> (currently implemented with radegast's follow function but it doesn't work.) This allows one avatar to issue commands to many avatars to help facilitate a decent load scenario. I plan to post the code to Github today. I definitely would appreciate any input on this. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Tom Haines <[email protected]> wrote: > Funny this should come up now. I've been looking into using Radegast at > work to perform some load testing. I've created a plugin that listens for > commands on the chat channel, and then has the avatar perform them. > > Here is the currently supported list of commands > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Karen Palen <[email protected]>wrote: > >> One of the advantages of open source it that Radegast can indeed go into >> "never never land" (as Second Life appears to be doing), BUT the existing >> code can be "forked" to provide the capability needed. >> >> My feeling is that the Radegast devs would be delighted to have this kind >> of acceptance of their work, especially if people were to do the "heavy >> lifting" of generating and providing working code to the project. However if >> I am wrong the "fork" is always an option! >> >> (Hmmmm, a "fork" sounds like some sort of nasty torture device doesn't it? >> ... HERETIC! you may either be BURNED at the stake or "forked" - >> ARRRGGGGHHH!) >> >> Karen >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Robert Klein <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> My biggest concern would be what if Radegast decides to go in another >>> direction with their product? It would be safer to go with something we >>> have >>> more control over. If we use a random function will we get random >>> results? I >>> am not a testing guru but imho it seems like we should have a certain >>> number >>> of things doing a certain number of things from a certain point to >>> another >>> certain point or something like that. :) >>> >>> Anyone out there who is deeply involved in testing and QA have an opinion >>> on >>> what we should be doing? >>> >>> -Robert >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://opensim-users.2152040.n2.nabble.com/Load-Testing-OpenSim-tp5197654p5214808.html >>> Sent from the opensim-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Opensim-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensim-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
