On 2013-10-22, at 5:22 PM, Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 21/10/2013 01:55, sebb a ecrit : >> On 19 October 2013 16:47, Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Le 19/10/2013 01:26, sebb a ecrit : >>> >>>> [Trying again - please do not hijack this thread.] >>>> >>>> The Constant Throughput Timer (CTT) calculates the desired wait time, >>>> and if this is less than zero - i.e. a sample should already have been >>>> generated - it could trigger the creation of a failed Assertion (or >>>> similar) >>>> showing the time difference. >>>> >>>> Would this be sufficient to detect all CO occurrences? >>> >>> An option in CTT element which allow to mark as fail the(s) sampler(s) in >>> the scope with a less than zero wait time seems a good point to inform >>> users. >>> The failed message can indicate the delay to help users to fix the scenario >>> (i.e. add more VU and reduce frequency of CTT) >> Or CTT would save the delay somewhere, and a new Assertion could be >> created to report it. >> >> That might work better if there are more places where delays could be >> detected. > > Yes good idea.
I think I suggested a separate detector. Could it not be a listener instead? Regards, Kirk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
