Okay, so we all know that most modern browsers (without tweaking) are set to 4 parallel HTTP requests at a time to a single domain/subdomain, but how does long-polling AJAX affect this?
Say I have a long-poll on a 15 second interval. While the browser is waiting for a response during those 15 seconds, does that still eat up one of the 4 parallel lines effectively making any new tabs or page loads open to only 3 parallel HTTP requests?
It's not always 4, often it's 2.
It is configurable to a higher number on the client side in many browsers.
Yes it does eat up one of the parallel connections.
You can have 2 concurrent requests via XHR..if you use more you might end up with unexpected results.
Use a Request Queue for more than 2 requests...each one being made after the previous one ends...
Some popular JS libraries implement a queue and can be used, or you could create one easily.
Related
I have a few question to clarify on my understanding of how JMeter works.
a. Thread Group determine the number of users but it does not determine how many HTML requests are generated per sec ? By default, I notice that every user will send a HTML request at a rate of 2 RPS.
b. If I want to change the RPS per user, then I need to use the Through Put Timer. But the Timer can only lower the request rate from 2 RPS to a lower number. It does not increase the RPS.
c. In order to increase the RPS, I need to add more Threads.
d. Does this mean we are limited to 2 RPS per user ? I see some website have links to many other websites so a webpage refresh would make many requests.
Is this the way JMeter works ?
I have a load test which has 8 transaction (eg CRUD,...). I intend to create a overall Test Plan and I want to use INCLUDE to add all the 8 txn. Do I just record the website and INCLUDE ? What should I include, only the HTML requests ?
I'm also thinking of adding Think Time and Add Variables in the 8 scripts before I INCLUDE.
Do I add the Config Element (eg CSV Dataset Config) in the 8 scripts or the overall Test Plan ?
Thanks.
By default each JMeter thread (virtual user) executes requests as fast as it can. If you want to slow JMeter down to mimic a real user which doesn't hammer the server non-stop and needs some time to "think" between operations - use Timers. More information: How do I Correlate the Number of (Concurrent) Users with Hits Per Second
If you want more RPS - add more threads (assuming that the system under test can give you more RPS)
You should INCLUDE everything which is related to your website (images, scripts, styles, fonts, sounds, etc.) but in the same manner as your browser does, i.e. don't record these requests and instead configure JMeter to download embedded resources and use HTTP Cache Manager so JMeter would request these resources just like browser does. Any requests to "external" websites should be excluded (unless they're also developed and supported and in scope for testing)
That's a good approach, if you use a value more than once it makes sense to declare it via User Defined Variables so you would be able to amend the value only in one place
You add it according to your scenarios, be informed about JMeter Scoping Rules
I have a specific use case which Im trying to solve using Node. The response time that I receive from NodeJS is not the one I expect.
The application is an express.js web application. The flow is as below
a. Request reaches the server.
b. Based on the parameter, backend REST Service is invoked.
c. The response of the REST Service has links to multiple other objects.
d. Navigate each of the link and agrregate the data.
e. This data is formatted (not much) and send to the client.
The actual test data-
The response from C has got 100 links and hence I make 100 parallel calls (Im using async.map). Each of the backend service responds in less than 30 msecs. But the overall response time for 100 requests is 4 seconds. This is considerably high.
What I have observed is :
The time difference between the first backend request and the last backend request is around 3 seconds. I believe that this is due to the fact that Node is single threaded and it takes 3 seconds to place all of the 100 http requests.
The code that I use to make parallel calls is given below
var getIndividualRecord = function(entity,callback1)
{
httpExecutor.executeRequest( entity.link.url, callback1);
}
var aggregateData = function(err, results)
{
callback(null, results);
}
async.map(childObjects, getIndividualRecord, aggregateData);
The childObjects is an array with 100 records. httpExecutor makes a REST invocation using request module.
Is there something wrong Im doing or is this a wrong use case for Node?
You're assumption is correct: node is single threaded, so while your HTTP requests happen in a nonblocking manner (requests are made right after the other without even waiting for the response from the server), they don't truly happen in simultaneously.
So, yes, it's probable it takes Node 3 seconds to get through all these requests and process them.
There are a few ways "around" this, which might work depending on your situation:
Could you use Node's cluster module to spawn multiple node apps and each do a portion of the work? Then you would be doing things simultaneously (since you have N Node processes going on).
Use a background queue mechanism (aka: Resque, Beanstalk) and have a background worker (or a process spawned with Cluster) to distribute the work (to Node worker processes waiting around to pick things off this queue)
Refactor your web app a little bit to deal with the fact that parts will take a while. Perhaps render most of the page then onload make an ajax request that fires off the 3 second route and then puts the results in some DOM element when the AJAX request comes back.
i have similar scenario and similar observation.
in my case I run node app using pm2. in app there are 2 sub servers (let's call them A and B). pm2 spawns 2 processes per each server. from a client i call server A, it calculates simple thing and call server B in async manner. when server B responds server A sends data back to client.
very simple scenario but when I used jmeter to create 1000 threads (where each thread makes 50 calls)to call server A I got average response around 4 sec (for 50000 calls).
server B responds after 50ms and I think this is the problem. during first 50ms nodejs processes lots of incoming requests and then it cannot quickly process responses from server B and incoming calls.
I would expect that application code is executed in single thread but there supposed to be background threads to deal with all the rest. it seems this is not the case.
I have this strange issue where sometimes if I make two AJAX requests to my Apache 2.2 server in rapid succession, the second request will wait for the first to finish before finishing.
Example, I have two requests, one that sleeps for 10 seconds and one that returns immediately. If I run the request that returns immediatly by itself it will always return within 300ms. However, if I call the request that takes 10 seconds, and then call the request that returns right away about 50% of the time the second request will wait until the first finishes and chrome will report that the request too about 10 seconds before receiving a response. The other half of the time the quick request will return right away.
I can't find any pattern to make it behave one way or another, it will just randomly block the quick AJAX requests sometimes, and other times it will behave as expected. I'm working on a dev server that only I am accessing and I've set several variables such as MaxRequestsPerChild to a high value.
Does anyone have any idea why Apache, seemingly at random, is turning my AJAX requests into synchronous requests?
Here is the code I'm running:
$.ajax({async:true,dataType:'json',url:'/progressTest',success:function(d){console.log('FINAL',d)}}); // Sleeps for 10 seconds
$.ajax({async:true,dataType:'json',url:'/progressTestStatus',success:function(d){console.log('STATUS',d)}}); // Takes ~300ms
And here are two screen shots. The first where it behaved as expected and the second where it waited for the slow process to finish first (in the example the timeout was set to 3 seconds).
UPDATE: Per the comments below - this appears to be related to Chrome only performing one request at a time. Any ideas why Chrome would set such a low limit on async requests?
The problem is not with Apache but with Google Chrome limiting the number of concurrent requests to your development server. I can only make guesses as to why it's limited to one request. Here are a couple:
1) Do you have many tabs open? There is a limit to the total number of concurrent connections and if you have many tabs making requests with KeepAlive you may be at that limit and can only establish one connect to your server. If that's the case you might be able to fix that by adding KeepAlive to your own output headers.
2) Do you have some extensions enabled. Some extensions do weird things to the browser. Try disabling all your extensions and making the same requests. If it works then enable them one at a time to find the culprit extension.
I've been messing around with Ruby and threading a little bit today. I have a list of proxies that I want to check. Assuming a timeout of 10 seconds going through a very large list of proxies will take many hours if I write something that goes like:
proxies.each do |proxy|
check_proxy(proxy)
end
My first problem with trying to figure out threads is how to START multiple at the same exact time. I found a neat little snippet of code online:
for page in pages
threads << Thread.new(page) { |myPage|
puts "Fetching: #{myPage}\n"
doc = Hpricot(open(myPage.to_s)).to_s
puts "Got #{myPage}: #{doc.size}"
}
end
Seems to work nicely as far as starting them all at the same time. So now I can... start checking all 7 thousand records at the same time?
How do I go to a file, take out a line for each thread, run a batch of like 20 and repeat the process?
Can I run a while loop that in turn starts 20 threads at the same (which remove lines from a file) and keeps going until the file is blank?
I'm a little weak on the logic of what I'm supposed to do.
Thanks guys!
PS.
Another thought: Will there be file access issues if 20 workers are constantly messing with it randomly? What would be a good way around that if this is so?
The keyword you are after is threadpool. You can either try to find one for Ruby (I am sure there's couple at least on Github), or roll your own.
Here's a simple implementation here on SO.
Re: the file access, IMO you shouldn't let workers alter the file directly, but do it in your main thread. You don't want to allow simultaneous edits there.
Try to use gem DelayJob:
https://github.com/tobi/delayed_job
You don't need to generate that many Threads in order to do this work. In fact generating a lot of Threads can decrease the overall performance of your application. If you handle checking each proxy asynchronously, without blocking, you can get by with far fewer threads.
You'd create a file manager thread to process the file. Each line gets added as a request to an array(request queue). On the other end of the request queue you can use eventmachine to send the requests without blocking. eventmachine would also be used to receive the responses and handle the timeout. The response can then be placed on another array(response queue) which your file manager thread polls. The file manager thread pulls the responses from the response queue and resolves if the proxy exists or not.
This gets you down to just creating two threads. One issue that you will have is limiting the number of requests that have been sent since this model will be able to send out all of the requests in less than a second and flood the nearest router. In my experience you should be able to have around 500 outstanding requests at any one time.
There is more than one way to solve this problem asynchronously but hopefully the above is enough to help get you started with non-blocking I/O.
This is kind of a 2 part question
1) Is there a max number of HttpWebRequests that can be run at the same time in WP7?
I'm going to create a ScheduledTaskAgent to run a PeriodicTask. There will be 2 different REST service calls the first one will get a list of IDs for records that need to be downloaded, the second service will be used to download those records one at a time. I don't know how many records there will be my guestimage would be +-50.
2.) Would making all the individual record requests at once be a bad idea? (assuming that its possible) or should I wait for a request to finish before starting another?
Having just spent a week and a half working at getting a BackgroundAgent to stay within it's memory limits, I would suggest doing them one at a time.
You lose about half your memory to system libraries and the like, your first web request will take another nearly 20%, but it seems to reuse that memory on subsequent requests.
If you need to store the results into a local database, it is going to take a good chunk more. I have found a CompiledQuery uses less memory, which means holding a single instance of your context.
Between each call I would suggest doing a GC.Collect(), I even add a short Thread.Sleep() just to be sure the process has some time to tidying things up.
Another thing I do is track how much memory I am using and attempt to exit gracefully when I get to around 97 or 98%.
You can not use the debugger to test memory limits as the debug memory is much higher and the limits are not enforced. However, for comparative testing between versions of your code, the debugger does produce very similar result on subsequent runs over the same code.
You can track your memory usage with Microsoft.Phone.Info.DeviceStatus.ApplicationCurrentMemoryUsage and Microsoft.Phone.Info.DeviceStatus.ApplicationMemoryUsageLimit
I write a status log into IsolatedStorage so I can see the result of runs on the phone and use ScheduledActionService.LaunchForTest() to kick the off. I then use ShellToast notifications to let me know when the task runs and also when it completes, that way I can launch my app to read the status log without interrupting it.
Tyler,
My 2 cents here.
I don't believe there is any restriction on how mant HTTPWebequests you can spin up. These however have to be async, off course, and may be served from the browser stack. Most modern browsers including IE9 handle over 5 concurrently to the same domain; but you are not guaranteed a request handle immediately. However, it should not matter if you are willing to wait on a separate thread, dump your content on to the request pipe & wait for response on yet another thread. This post (here) has a nice walkthrough of why we need to do this.
Nothing wrong with this approach either, IMO. You're just going to have to wait until all the requests have their respective pipelines & then wait for the responses.
Thanks!
1) Your memory limit in a PeriodicTask or ResourceIntensiveTask is 5 MB. So you definitely should control your requests really careful. I dont think there is a limit in the code.
2)You have only 5 MB. So when you start all your requests at the same time it will terminate immediately.
3) I think you should better use a ResourceIntensiveTask because a PeriodicTask should only run 15 seconds.
Good guide for Multitasking features in Mango: http://blogs.infosupport.com/blogs/alexb/archive/2011/05/26/multi-tasking-in-windows-phone-7-1.aspx
I seem to remember (but can't find the reference right now) that the maximum number of requests that the OS can make at once is 7. You should avoid making this many at once though as it will stop other/system apps from being able to make requests.