01-09-2014 06:00 AM
I am attempting for the first time to load test one of the application using Ajax true client. We plan to load with 1000-concurrent users for few business process.
Has anyone tried high vuload testing using Ajax true client? Do you have any suggestions in terms of the hardware you used for Load generators?
I was informed that Ajax trueclient are memory & CPU intensive. I will be using high end hardware, so getting few 8GB memory RAM is not a big deal...But I wonder how the CPU utilization can be controller?
I did run for 25 vu load and peak CPU utilization was 19%, I am struck on how to right size my LG's for handling 1000 users.
Thanks for your time and appreciate your thoughts.
01-09-2014 06:16 AM
TruClient footprint depends on several parameters (AUT, HW, OS, Browser version) and can vary immensely.
Please try to run your BP with 1 Vuser, measure, and do the multiplication.
TruClient RnD Team Manager
01-29-2014 09:25 PM
I tried load testing an application using Ajax Truclient. My plan was to load test the application with 1000 concurrent users for some business process
After reading the Hp expert's reply , I ran the BP with 1Vuser for 1 Iteration and the average CPU utilization was 18%. Since the utilization was immensely high, I tried running it again to check whether the results are correct or not, again it showed almost the same result.
The Memory (Private working set) usage was a whopping 1405401098.952bytes.
Please give me a suggestion for controlling the CPU utilization.
01-31-2014 03:14 AM
As Guy Rosenthal suggested "TruClient footprint depends on several parameters (AUT, HW, OS, Browser version) and can vary immensely."
You should make the calculations in your environment with the script you are planning to test. Please find additional information and links to knowledge documents which explain how to make these calculations in the following post: http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/LoadRunner-Support-Cu
If you haven’t tried it yet, come and join us in our entitled forums at Support Customer Forums
If you find that this or any post resolves your issue, please be sure to mark it as an accepted solution.
01-31-2014 12:37 PM - edited 01-31-2014 12:47 PM
We also explored the use of TruClient (both FireFox and IE) for performance testing purposes, but found similar result that you have experienced. The CPU and Memory footprint required per VUser made the protocols unusable for any real-world performance testing.
Exact quote excerpt from my written note to HP on the subject:
"...Additionally, we observed that our load generator servers were requiring to run vusers as dedicated processes (versus threads), and that each mdrv process would consume 300-500Mb of memory. With that sort of demand on the servers, it would be impractical to pursue the use of TruClient for achieving any significant load..."
02-02-2014 12:48 AM
You can run the BP manually on real browsers (FF or IE) and watch the CPU high utilization (regardless to LR or TruCleint).
TruClient protocol simulate a real, authentic user on a *real* browser. This implies that that TruClient scalability is lower than Web/HTTP protocol which is a network level protocol.
TruClient has many other advantages such as:
1. Easy and intuitive scripting
2. Easy and fast maintenance
3. No correlations
4. In some AJAX, Web2.0 applications it will be impossible to go with the network level protocols due to the "browser logic" notion.
Means to improve TruClient scalability:
1. Use more LGs, distribute the test among several injectors
2. Combine TruClient and Web/HTTP load scenarios to load the server
3. We found that even with relatively low amount of TruClient Vusers server issues could be detected.
For more reading on the subject: http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/HP-LoadRunner-and-Per
TruClient RnD Team Manager
02-02-2014 01:30 AM
I can't understand you last statement.
If you can create and maintain a BP test script in Web/HTTP go f or it as it scale better.
In many cases it is impossible to do it (time wise) and then TruClient will be the best solution for you.
Can you tell why the application is so heavy on the browsers?
TruClient RnD Team Manager
02-02-2014 02:33 AM
Thank you for your quick reply..
Does it make any difference in CPU and Memory utilization, if I am scripting the BP using Ajax Web Click and Script and doing the load test...??
02-03-2014 07:37 AM
We personally have not gone so far as to use another tool, since in my personal opinion LoadRunner is by far the best platform available for performance testing.
Instead, we adjust estimates for script development accordingly and continue to use the Web (HTTP/HTML) protocol for primary side load placement. Correlation can be much more complex on some of our newer internal application platforms which use extensive json/comet calls, but the end product can still be made to function predicatably and reliably.
Then, to capture any client-side metrics, we can still use a very small implementation of a couple GUI-type virtual users such as TruClient.
02-10-2014 04:59 AM - edited 02-10-2014 05:00 AM
Thanks Adnrew for your inputs.
Yes, I agree with you, LoadRunner is the best tool. I personally won't prefer using any other tool given the fact that features LoadRunner provides.
We are working on a G2B application, the application is using rich contents and we are struck in correlating few dynamic parameters one of them is same as faced by some other user as well
The issue we have is something similar to this.
Thanks for your response.
We have very limited access to the development environment. We plan to load test for 1000-users and current foot-print per user is around 87MB.
We tried using HTTP/HTML, Web Click & Script, Ajax Click and Script before trying with Ajax True-Client.
When using other protocols, we are facing issues with the correlation and given the time we have to load test, we are looking for a feasible solution.
Appreciate your time and thanks for any inputs.