Hello,
Any feedback on this ?
Are you the opener of this ?:

- https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61725

Thanks

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello,
> You can adjust accuracy by setting in user.properties:
>
>    - jmeter.reportgenerator.statistic_window = 20000
>
> Caution : higher value provides a better accuracy but needs more memory.
>
> This is not a bug.
>
> We use DescriptiveStatistics from commons-math with a sliding window.
>
> So if after modifying this value you still face issue, please report and
> open a bug at commons-math.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Malith Jayasinghe <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We have been using JMETER extensively for performance testing.
>>
>> All our performance reports are generated using the JMETER Dashboard.
>>
>> Recently, we have found out that there is an issue in
>> the JMETER dashboard's *latency percentile calculation. *
>>
>> There is a significant difference in the actual percentile values and the
>> values shown in the dashboard. We have verified this using "R" and in
>> fact,
>> the values shown the JMETER aggregate report are correct. The values that
>> appear in the JMETER Dashboard are not.
>>
>> We understand that JMETER Dashboard may be using a different algorithm
>> (approximation) for percentile calculation. However, the problem is that
>> that latency percentiles values calculated using this algorithm are not
>> accurate (at least for certain scenarios).
>>
>> We have had a case where the Dashboard showing a 95% percentile value 1000
>> ms. However, the correct value was 321 ms.
>>
>> The accuracy of percentile values are of utmost importance to us and we
>> would kindly ask you to look into this issue and release a patch if
>> possible.
>>
>> If you can implement the same algorithm used in the aggregate report
>> within
>> the dashboard that will resolve this issue.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Malith Jayasinghe
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>


-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

Reply via email to