Re: [JMeter] JUnit sampler sample time changes

Ben Cuthbert <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.jakarta.cactus.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
Thanks Sebb

So what would you suggest if I want to get microsecond latency measurements? I am thinking only running a freebsd box to load test?
Or maybe implement my own tool to test performance?

Regards

Ben
On 3 Apr 2011, at 14:45, sebb wrote:

> That reminds me -
> 
> Tests I've done on Windows show that nanoTime() drifts considerably
> when compared with currentTimeMillis(), i.e. its clock does not appear
> to run at the same rate.
> 
> Here's a simple test you can run:
> 
> public class NanoDrift {
>    public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
>        long systemTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>        long nanoTime = System.nanoTime() / 1000000;
>        long count=0;
>        while(true){
>            long systemDiff = System.currentTimeMillis() - systemTime;
>            long nanoDiff = System.nanoTime() / 1000000 - nanoTime;
>            long absdiff = Math.abs(systemDiff-nanoDiff);
>            if (absdiff > 100 || (count % 60 == 0)) {
>                System.out.println("@:"+count+" |S-N|:"+absdiff+"
> S:"+systemDiff + " N:" + nanoDiff);
>            }
>            Thread.sleep(1000);
>            count++;
>        }
>    }
> }
> 
> Behaviour may depend on the JVM used; on
> 
> java version "1.6.0_24"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_24-b07)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 19.1-b02, mixed mode, sharing)
> 
> I just got
> 
> @:0 |S-N|:0 S:0 N:0
> @:60 |S-N|:0 S:60032 N:60032
> @:120 |S-N|:1 S:120032 N:120033
> @:180 |S-N|:2 S:180032 N:180034
> @:240 |S-N|:6 S:240032 N:240038
> @:300 |S-N|:7 S:300032 N:300039
> @:360 |S-N|:13 S:360032 N:360045
> @:420 |S-N|:14 S:420032 N:420046
> @:480 |S-N|:15 S:480032 N:480047
> @:540 |S-N|:16 S:540032 N:540048
> @:600 |S-N|:17 S:600032 N:600049
> @:660 |S-N|:18 S:660032 N:660050
> @:720 |S-N|:19 S:720032 N:720051
> @:780 |S-N|:20 S:780032 N:780052
> @:840 |S-N|:21 S:840032 N:840053
> @:900 |S-N|:22 S:900032 N:900054
> @:960 |S-N|:23 S:960032 N:960055
> @:1020 |S-N|:24 S:1020032 N:1020056
> @:1080 |S-N|:21 S:1080063 N:1080084
> @:1140 |S-N|:22 S:1140063 N:1140085
> @:1200 |S-N|:23 S:1200063 N:1200086
> @:1260 |S-N|:24 S:1260063 N:1260087
> @:1320 |S-N|:21 S:1320172 N:1320193
> @:1380 |S-N|:36 S:1380172 N:1380208
> @:1440 |S-N|:37 S:1440172 N:1440209
> @:1500 |S-N|:38 S:1500172 N:1500210
> @:1560 |S-N|:40 S:1560172 N:1560212
> @:1620 |S-N|:41 S:1620172 N:1620213
> @:1680 |S-N|:42 S:1680172 N:1680214
> @:1740 |S-N|:29 S:1740188 N:1740217
> @:1800 |S-N|:30 S:1800188 N:1800218
> @:1860 |S-N|:31 S:1860188 N:1860219
> @:1920 |S-N|:31 S:1920188 N:1920219
> @:1980 |S-N|:32 S:1980188 N:1980220
> @:2040 |S-N|:33 S:2040188 N:2040221
> @:2100 |S-N|:34 S:2100188 N:2100222
> @:2160 |S-N|:35 S:2160188 N:2160223
> @:2220 |S-N|:36 S:2220188 N:2220224
> @:2280 |S-N|:37 S:2280188 N:2280225
> @:2340 |S-N|:38 S:2340188 N:2340226
> @:2400 |S-N|:39 S:2400188 N:2400227
> @:2460 |S-N|:40 S:2460188 N:2460228
> @:2520 |S-N|:41 S:2520188 N:2520229
> 
> However, on a FreeBSD system using
> 
> java version "1.6.0_03-p4"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_03-p4-root_17_dec_2010_05_08-b00)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build
> 1.6.0_03-p4-root_17_dec_2010_05_08-b00, mixed mode)
> 
> I see no drift:
> 
> @:0 |S-N|:0 S:0 N:0
> @:60 |S-N|:0 S:60118 N:60118
> @:120 |S-N|:0 S:120239 N:120239
> @:180 |S-N|:1 S:180357 N:180358
> @:240 |S-N|:0 S:240476 N:240476
> @:300 |S-N|:0 S:300594 N:300594
> @:360 |S-N|:0 S:360713 N:360713
> @:420 |S-N|:0 S:420830 N:420830
> @:480 |S-N|:1 S:480948 N:480949
> @:540 |S-N|:0 S:541066 N:541066
> @:600 |S-N|:0 S:601184 N:601184
> @:660 |S-N|:0 S:661302 N:661302
> @:720 |S-N|:0 S:721419 N:721419
> @:780 |S-N|:0 S:781537 N:781537
> @:840 |S-N|:0 S:841655 N:841655
> @:900 |S-N|:0 S:901773 N:901773
> @:960 |S-N|:1 S:961890 N:961891
> @:1020 |S-N|:0 S:1022008 N:1022008
> @:1080 |S-N|:0 S:1082126 N:1082126
> @:1140 |S-N|:0 S:1142244 N:1142244
> @:1200 |S-N|:1 S:1202361 N:1202362
> @:1260 |S-N|:1 S:1262479 N:1262480
> @:1320 |S-N|:0 S:1322600 N:1322600
> @:1380 |S-N|:1 S:1382748 N:1382749
> @:1440 |S-N|:0 S:1442879 N:1442879
> @:1500 |S-N|:1 S:1502997 N:1502998
> @:1560 |S-N|:0 S:1563115 N:1563115
> @:1620 |S-N|:0 S:1623233 N:1623233
> @:1680 |S-N|:0 S:1683351 N:1683351
> @:1740 |S-N|:0 S:1743468 N:1743468
> @:1800 |S-N|:0 S:1803586 N:1803586
> @:1860 |S-N|:0 S:1863704 N:1863704
> @:1920 |S-N|:1 S:1923838 N:1923839
> @:1980 |S-N|:0 S:1983959 N:1983959
> @:2040 |S-N|:1 S:2044077 N:2044078
> @:2100 |S-N|:0 S:2104195 N:2104195
> @:2160 |S-N|:0 S:2164313 N:2164313
> @:2220 |S-N|:1 S:2224430 N:2224431
> @:2280 |S-N|:1 S:2284548 N:2284549
> @:2340 |S-N|:0 S:2344666 N:2344666
> @:2400 |S-N|:1 S:2404784 N:2404785
> @:2460 |S-N|:0 S:2464903 N:2464903
> @:2520 |S-N|:0 S:2525020 N:2525020
> @:2580 |S-N|:0 S:2585138 N:2585138
> @:2640 |S-N|:0 S:2645256 N:2645256
> 
> 
> On 3 April 2011 13:50, Peter Lin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Another important thing to consider is that nano time costs a lot more
>> than System.currentTimeMillis().
>> 
>> I've done some benchmarking in the past and nano time costs 30% on
>> windows. On linux, the cost is higher due to differences in how it's
>> implemented.
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:28 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 3 April 2011 08:32, Ben Cuthbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I see the nanotime. But the time in the sampler results is reported in ms. So when you have you data
>>>> it just says 0. I would like it to go one further and report a low level.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, that's not possible currently.
>>> 
>>> Changing the elapsed time to nanoSecs would break compatibility, and
>>> such a level of precision is illusory anyway for almost all of the
>>> samplers.
>>> 
>>> It might be possible to keep a separate field for nanoSeconds and
>>> report that, but I'm not sure there's sufficient need to warrant the
>>> change and additional data storage.
>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> On 2 Apr 2011, at 16:18, sebb wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 31 March 2011 19:41, Ben Cuthbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> All
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have been looking over the code in the JUnitSampler code under the jmeter source.
>>>>>> I would like to make a change to use nanoTime() rather than milliseconds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can see in the AnnotatedTestCase there is an elapsed time. But I can't see how it
>>>>>> is returned to a results table. Any ideas?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The time in AnnotatedTestCase is only used for reporting timeout errors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The actual sample time is calculated using SampleResult.sampleStart()
>>>>> and sampleEnd() which already use nanoTime().
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.