Forum Discussion

AndyHughes's avatar
AndyHughes
Regular Contributor
14 years ago

Table logs don't tally

I've run a load test via a SOAPUI runner and connected two tables. One which outputs the number of requests/running/failed etc (1 row per second), and the other which outputs the actual time taken for each request and the timestamp.

25 seconds into the test, the request time increases dramatically to around 30seconds. Yet 25 seconds (rows) into the other table (and in fact 26, 27, 28, 29) the number of running requests is largely zero.

This is using a fixed rate of 5/sec so surely by 29 secs there should be 20-25 running at least?

Looking at the failed column there are also a number that come back failed which increases at this same point. Is it the case that these columns try to actually represent what 'ought' to go in that particular cell of the table log based on when the requests were made rather than what is actually the case at the particular point in time.
ie up to this point there is nothing running, 128 requests and 128 completed. Then all of a sudden there are 5 more failures in the next second, which can't have happened as the equivalent failed requests take 30secs to complete.

2 Replies

  • Hello!

    I haven't yet looked into the numbers, but just wanted to ask: Are you getting the same results in the soapUI Runner statistics in the Statistics Workbench?

    Regards

    Henrik
    SmartBear Software
  • AndyHughes's avatar
    AndyHughes
    Regular Contributor
    I think I have a mistake in here (at least for part of it) I think the table log is misleading as I have it set to 100 rows so I may have lost a few seconds off the top due to it exceeding 1000 rows.

    However this doesn't explain the other table where I appear to have failures coming back, but no requests running.

    I've tried this test again this morning and I don't get this behaviour. I get an increase in the number running, before the failures start to come back, and I think the stats section is consistent with this.

    So maybe this is just spurious result. Would be interesting to see your comments on the unexplained bit though.