-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 396
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Separate call rate increase to a dedicated task #107
Conversation
I'm unable to test this because of this error: https://gist.github.com/bklang/b9bf75dbd48991b8b5b0 Specifically, the bottom two lines of that gist:
If someone can help me figure out this problem I'll test and complete this PR. |
That means you used the wrong version of automake/aclocal. You can fetch any version from the gnu site. They're supersmall to install. We use 1.13, IIRC. |
Thanks @wdoekes. I've tried that, but I'm still getting the same error:
|
Ok with the final commit above, I was able to test that this is working now. So the code is ready to be merged, but the build system needs to be updated. I got it working by reverting the changes to I'm still not sure what's wrong with autoconf/aclocal, but I can't get it to produce valid files. Could someone else update them to include the new ratetask file? That's the only thing left as far as I can see. Maybe @rkday? |
@rkday @wdoekes I've re-run autoreconf and extracted the only changes required to fix the build with the new ratetask files. It doesn't solve the problem that I can't run the autoreconf tool (which was broken, at least for me, before this PR), but it does allow sipp to build successfully. I believe that makes this PR complete and ready to merge. Would you mind reviewing and letting me know if you need anything further? |
instance = new ratetask(); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
void ratetask::dump() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please add linefeed between functions.
Looks good to me. Can you fix those tiny coding style issues and squash all this into a single commit? |
Absolutely, thanks for the review. Nits fixed. |
...and squashed. |
So, @bklang asked for my opinion on this, so here it is: So, this seems like a good opportunity to prompt for a discussion of SIPp versioning / release policy. There's no changelog, but we should fix that. Does the project intend to follow a documented versioning policy such as SemVer? It seems like without that, these decisions on what can and can't change are made arbitrarily, and we should instead have a written statement on how those decisions get made. In this specific case, I understand the desire to avoid breaking scripts written to exploit this bug, but at the same time I think it falls distinctly into the category of "bug" in so much as it's a design flaw. Was the buggy behaviour ever documented? If not, then users have no formal basis on which to exploit it, and they're relying on their own experience. This is not a strong defence for including code specifically to recreate a bug. |
Yes, this behaviour is documented (and this pull request in fact changes the documentation for it - https://github.com/SIPp/sipp/pull/107/files#diff-d4a20109022fdf77b05548a93daf8fedL276). The use of -fd isn't unintentional or a bug - the idea behind linking -rate_increase and -fd is that you'll run load at X level for n seconds, dump out the results of that stage of testing, then run load at X+1 level for n seconds, dump out the results of that stage of testing, and so on. It doesn't design for every use-case, but it's not a bug as such. Changelogs, SemVer etc. are all valid topics to discuss - but I don't think they're quite relevant to this thread, because whether you have changelogs or a particular versioning scheme wouldn't change the fact that if possible, "-rate_increase 10 -fd 60" should work the same between releases - they just address the question of how to document it when you have to break backwards compatibility. But as far as I can tell - though I'm happy to be corrected if wrong - that's not the case here. |
Ah, then if this behaviour is intentional, the point of my comment is void and I retract it. Thanks for clearing that up. |
Hellow, Guys. |
@kvishnivetsky: I believe the AX_HAVE_EPOLL issue may have been fixed in master 6f03211. |
Oh! I see now, thanks! |
Thanks, @wdoekes for your advice, but code from master branch fails on autoreconf -if stage with error:
|
I have a solution: Use m4_include instead of AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS([m4]) |
B.t.w. you could just run |
Continued at #126. |
Via the new `calls_per_second_interval` option. See also SIPp/sipp#107 and SIPp/sipp#126.
Via the new `calls_per_second_interval` option. See also SIPp/sipp#107 and SIPp/sipp#126.
For several load tests, I want to have finer-grained statistics coming from SIPp, so I have the
-fd
option set to1s
. However, this means that if I want to use the automatic rate increases, I'm stuck with either coarser stats, or a less-useful ramp-up time.This PR is an attempt to move call rate increases into a separate task.
Note: I have not yet been able to test this because I'm having trouble with the autotools. I'll put those details into a comment.