I've done some research on this and I'm fairly convinced it doesn't exist, but I thought I would just ask here in case I missed something. I want to be able to full-stack load test a Ruby on Rails site (not that rails matters in this context) running dynamic test plans across multiple concurrent users in order to better replicate real world usage. In other words, I'd like to run say 50 concurrent user sessions where some of them are signing up, some are just browsing around, some are logging in and doing UserActivity1, some are doing UserActivity2, etc. I want to script the test plans in ruby, similar to a seleinum-rc test plan where I can use the same DSL to simulate user input and identify parts of the response html, and use that to drive further test activity. I'd like to use some of the same DSL from my selenium or integration test helper modules already developed in these tests as well in order to be DRY. I would like the test framework to mimc the browser behaviour: handling cookies and even simulating caching to send the appropriate If-Modified-Since headers. Since I would like to replicate actual request load on the server, I want to make sure that all page assets, even static ones like images/css/js/flash, are requested during the test, so it would be nice if an HTTP Proxy could be used to create the initial test plans by recording actual browser sessions. Some things I've looked at so far: JMeter: - seems difficult to make dynamic test plans here that will modify requests based on earlier responses - test plans are in XML, although I suppose I could use a ruby DSL to generate the XML, but since the proxy records to XML I'd also have to generate ruby from XML The Grinder: - Looks awesome, and I may end up going with this, but it would be nicer to use ruby instead of Jython in order to leverage my teams existing code and skills. shell/curl/ruby script mish mash: - A lot of control, and curl handles cookies, but no real framework support and no proxy recording Ruby code: - Doesn't really seem to be any test framework that deals with concurrent requests like this - I assume JRuby would be required (and would be sufficient) to get real threading - I feel like there are probably a lot of pieces that could be tied together to make what I want, but unsure of what they are or which ones to concentrate on. Hpricot? Mechanize? Anyone have any ideas? Is anyone doing load testing via ruby?
on 2009-02-25 20:54
on 2009-02-25 21:54
Dav Yaginuma wrote: > - I assume JRuby would be required (and would be sufficient) to get real > threading JRuby or IronRuby would get you native threads, though the latter is still pretty alpha. I'd love to see a load-testing tool written for real parallel threads in Ruby. Maybe something like Grinder? - Charlie
on 2009-02-25 22:00
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Dav Yaginuma <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Since I would like to replicate actual request load on the server, I want to > generate the XML, but since the proxy records to XML I'd also have to > > > -- > Dav Yaginuma > http://AkuAku.org/ > I've made similar searches and come up with the same emptiness. There are two major *commercial* load testing tools, LoadRunner and SilkPerformer. I have about seven years of experience with SilkPerformer and almost none with LoadRunner. There are a few open source recorders, but none I have found that are anywhere near as good as SilkPerformer. What you *could* do is get a low-end SilkPerformer or LoadRunner license ... just enough virtual users so you'd get a recording capability ... and then write a Ruby run-time and parser to translate the "native" language to Ruby. But check the EULA to see if this is legal. I never tried it because I consider it a waste of effort. Really, you need to make a business decision here. What is the cost to your business of the time you spend building a load testing framework when you could be developing and testing your product? I'd recommend you seriously consider buying a license for LoadRunner or SilkPerformer if performance of your application is mission-critical. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.linkedin.com/in/edborasky I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.
on 2009-02-26 02:36
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <email@example.com>wrote: > > In other words, I'd like to run say 50 concurrent user sessions where > > use some of the same DSL from my selenium or integration test helper > images/css/js/flash, > > based on earlier responses > > > > - I feel like there are probably a lot of pieces that could be tied > > the "native" language to Ruby. But check the EULA to see if this is > http://www.linkedin.com/in/edborasky > > I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed. > > Thanks Ed, Good to know I wasn't missing something obvious. I've contacted sales reps for SilkPerformer and LoadRunner. My fear (and unfortunate experience) with this kind of software is that you spend a lot to get a complicated but powerful system that then requires more time (and money) to make actually work. They both seem to have a lot of features that I don't need, so I was hoping to find something more streamlined and ruby-oriented first. It's good to be aware of all the alternatives though, so thanks for the pointer. I had heard of LoadRunner but not SilkPerformer.
on 2009-02-26 04:08
Dav Yaginuma wrote: > so thanks for the pointer. I had heard of LoadRunner but not SilkPerformer. > > 50 concurrent virtual users probably won't cost you a lot. They usually charge a base price plus a price per virtual user. The assumption is that your business will grow, you'll need to emulate more users, and you'll be able to buy more virtual users. For what it's worth, the real "secret sauce" in the recorders is the ability to extract session data, cookie send / receive, parsing data out of the returned HTML and branching on it, etc. Pure record / playback isn't all that hard to do, it's the "other stuff" that makes these tools worth the money. P.S.: It warms my heart to know that there are actually web application developers out there who realize the *need* for load testing. There are some big name web sites out there that seem to go into deep space when they update the database, for example. And load testing can also give you *good* news ... you may need *less* server than you're planning on. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.linkedin.com/in/edborasky I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.
on 2009-02-26 09:29
I have great experiences with tsung: http://tsung.erlang-projects.org/ Its easy to distribute, rather easy to configure (in XML...), is able to handle dynamic stuff like "create a resource, parse the id out of the answer and create a child resource" rather easily. There is also an easy way of consuming the answer using an Erlang function. The Documentation is quite thorough. It also provides a recording proxy and AFAIK there is a parser for apache logs. I also have a small sinatra-app serving the logs that I want to release next week or so. Regards, Florian : It's not that hard. -- Florian Gilcher smtp: firstname.lastname@example.org jabber: Skade@jabber.ccc.de gpg: 533148E2
on 2009-02-26 18:25
on 2009-02-26 19:30
Dav, It really depends on why you want to do this. If you simply want to push a workload that is representative but without any concern about absolute correctness then a JMeter or LoadRunner or Grinder can be good. LoadRunner has a great UI. This allows you to stress test and see where the hotspots are. New Relic is an excellent complement to any of these. If you want a realistic load test and want to actually estimate absolute capacity then you're choosing to do something harder. The best tool is the open source httperf. Its the only tool here that uses an open workload model. You will find that LoadRunner and the other tools I suggested will always overestimate system capacity. That is because in these tools, a virtual agent won't fire a new user request until the prior one completes. This of course is not what happens in real life, where a heavy tailed Pareto distribution of requests is typical. Httperf addresses this issue and allows you to get data that is more realistic in an absolute sense. If you're wanting to tune and improve performance or throughput and not simply measure it that's a whole other ball-game. Be prepared to take some time and learn, or hire some help. Peter Booth 917 445 5663 PS - If anyone needs assistance with tuning Rails apps, website capacity planning, load testing, please ping me. I am available. I work at the application code, web server, DB server, operating system, TCP stack, physical network and hardware layers. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Dav Yaginuma <email@example.com>