Just a suggestion...
jasonwtucker at gmail.com
Tue Dec 6 23:09:39 CET 2005
You're right... I guest I could do something like that - with each tsunami
instance using a distinct set of XMPP users. The only problem I have with
that is that I have significantly less tsunami load gen hosts than I do XMPP
connection managers. It seems like I would need at least a 1:1 ratio to get
this to work, as I can only run one tsunami instance per client host (I
On 12/6/05, Mark Smith <msmith at truelink.com> wrote:
> It's not a perfect solution, but a possible way to do this would be to
> copy your <session> for as many servers as you have and change the host
> name to the web server IPs instead of the load balancer IP.
> My .xml file is generated by a system we built internally that can easily
> loop around templates like this which would make this easy to do, but
> unfortunately, our tool is not public so I can't send a copy to you.
> Something like M4 might do the trick, however.
> Jason Tucker wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm working on troubleshooting a capacity issue in our environment, and
> > to thinking about something that would really help me out...
> > Right now, we have a number of XMPP connections managers sitting behind
> > load balancer, and obviously, I'm seding my tsunami load to the load
> > balancer address.
> > It would be great if I could take the load balancer variable out of our
> > test. In other words, have tsunami use a *pool* of server addresses,
> > it would consider to be a single server. Each tsunami client could
> > use round-robin to decide which server address to connect to. Does that
> > sense?
> > I'm not sure if this is feasible or not, but I just thought I'd offer it
> > as a suggestion! :-)
> > Thanks!
> > __Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tsung-users