Don't start more than [N] tests per second
Don't start more than [N] tests per second
Hi !
HM6.72Beta on win2003:
Under Options -> Behaviour -> Don't start more than [N] tests per second it is possible to specify up to 128 tests. If a higher number is specified HM will change it to 128.
What happens if HM needs to perform more than 128 tests simultaniously ?
Thanks in advance !
Kasper
HM6.72Beta on win2003:
Under Options -> Behaviour -> Don't start more than [N] tests per second it is possible to specify up to 128 tests. If a higher number is specified HM will change it to 128.
What happens if HM needs to perform more than 128 tests simultaniously ?
Thanks in advance !
Kasper
-
- Posts: 2832
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:41 am
- Contact:
Re: Don't start more than [N] tests per second
Yes. 128 is a predefined limit. HostMonitor will not start more than 128 tests per second.Kapz wrote:Under Options -> Behaviour -> Don't start more than [N] tests per second it is possible to specify up to 128 tests. If a higher number is specified HM will change it to 128.
HostMonitor suspends execution extra tests. Theoretically we can increase this limit, but I am not sure system will work nice. HostMonitor was not designed for such configuration - run all test items at the same time. Its better to use fixed set of threads for such task, while HostMonitor creates new thread for each test.Kapz wrote:What happens if HM needs to perform more than 128 tests simultaniously ?
Regards,
Max
Thanks, Max.
Perhaps you can suggest what would be a workaroud for me then.
Every day at 12:00 I want to perform a large numer of tests (probably way more than 300) only once. These tests checks that varoius tasks have run as supposed during the night by checking time stamps and so on.
These tests has a schedule that tests 1 time/minute from 12:00 till 12:00 meaning that they have status Out of Schedule for the remaining 23 hours and 59 minutes of the day.
It's not critical if these tests are performed at 12:00 or 12:01 or 12:02 as long as I'm just sure that each and everyone are in fact tested - but with "only" (please note the quotation marks
) 128 tests/sec. beeing available simultaniously, is there any way that I can be certain that every single one of all these tests have been executed at least once e.g. in a schedule from 12:00 till 12:05 ?
Thanks in advance !
Kasper
Perhaps you can suggest what would be a workaroud for me then.
Every day at 12:00 I want to perform a large numer of tests (probably way more than 300) only once. These tests checks that varoius tasks have run as supposed during the night by checking time stamps and so on.
These tests has a schedule that tests 1 time/minute from 12:00 till 12:00 meaning that they have status Out of Schedule for the remaining 23 hours and 59 minutes of the day.
It's not critical if these tests are performed at 12:00 or 12:01 or 12:02 as long as I'm just sure that each and everyone are in fact tested - but with "only" (please note the quotation marks

Thanks in advance !
Kasper
1) HostMonitor does not allow you to create more than 128 threads because its not really necessary and its not really good for the system. Windows/CPU will spend a lot of time for switching between threads, allocate/dealocate resources and so on.
2) You should not worry about your tests as long as "Estimate load" dialog shows green or yellow status. If HostMonitor cannot perform some tests immediately, it will perform these tests 1,5,10 seconds later.
Regards
Alex
2) You should not worry about your tests as long as "Estimate load" dialog shows green or yellow status. If HostMonitor cannot perform some tests immediately, it will perform these tests 1,5,10 seconds later.
Regards
Alex
Alex,
Thanks for your reply.
> You should not worry about your tests as long as "Estimate load" dialog shows green or yellow status.
Currently I've got yellow status with 98 tests/sec during "normal operation" (read: When the clock is anything but 12:00-12:01)
> If HostMonitor cannot perform some tests immediately, it will perform these tests 1,5,10 seconds later.
Thanks - this is exactly what I was hoping for !
So with this in mind, HM should be able to perform say 350 tests within this one and only minute that they are supposed to be executed in ?
It might be at 12:00:00, 12:00:04, 12:00:27 or similar but theoretically they should all be executed ?
Thanks !
Kasper
Thanks for your reply.
> You should not worry about your tests as long as "Estimate load" dialog shows green or yellow status.
Currently I've got yellow status with 98 tests/sec during "normal operation" (read: When the clock is anything but 12:00-12:01)
> If HostMonitor cannot perform some tests immediately, it will perform these tests 1,5,10 seconds later.
Thanks - this is exactly what I was hoping for !
So with this in mind, HM should be able to perform say 350 tests within this one and only minute that they are supposed to be executed in ?
It might be at 12:00:00, 12:00:04, 12:00:27 or similar but theoretically they should all be executed ?
Thanks !
Kasper
-
- Posts: 2832
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:41 am
- Contact:
In case with 350 tests, HostMonitor starts 128 tests at once and will perform other tests when some previous test will be fineshed.Kapz wrote:So with this in mind, HM should be able to perform say 350 tests within this one and only minute that they are supposed to be executed in ?
Correct.Kapz wrote:It might be at 12:00:00, 12:00:04, 12:00:27 or similar but theoretically they should all be executed ?
Regards,
Max
-
- Posts: 2832
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:41 am
- Contact:
Alex,
> I would recommend to reconsider test intervals for non high-priority test items to reduce system load.
You are absolutely right about this - actually one thing that could help me on this matter would be if HostMonitor could preserve that last reply for tests with status Out of Schedule - like it can with disabled tests.
This is the one I asked for here: http://www.ks-soft.net/cgi-bin/phpBB/vi ... php?t=3832
This way I could put many tests in schedules that only checks very few times a day reducing my total load.
Hint-hint
Kasper
> I would recommend to reconsider test intervals for non high-priority test items to reduce system load.
You are absolutely right about this - actually one thing that could help me on this matter would be if HostMonitor could preserve that last reply for tests with status Out of Schedule - like it can with disabled tests.
This is the one I asked for here: http://www.ks-soft.net/cgi-bin/phpBB/vi ... php?t=3832
This way I could put many tests in schedules that only checks very few times a day reducing my total load.
Hint-hint

Kasper
Alex,
> Sorry, I do not see how this is related and why you cannot use long test interval for unimportant test items (e.g. 1 or 5 hours).
Understandable. Of course I *can* use longer test intervals for certain tests but there is no way that I can control this in a centralized way.
The genious thing about schedules is that I can assign e.g. 300 tests a certain schedule and if I need to lower the number of times that these tests a performed I can simply edit one single schedule to allow fewer periods where the tests are enabled.
By using test intervals to accomplish this I'll have to manually decrease the test interval for 300 tests spread across my entire tree structure every time the load gets too high.
Hope I was able to clarify how the two issues are related.
/Kasper
> Sorry, I do not see how this is related and why you cannot use long test interval for unimportant test items (e.g. 1 or 5 hours).
Understandable. Of course I *can* use longer test intervals for certain tests but there is no way that I can control this in a centralized way.
The genious thing about schedules is that I can assign e.g. 300 tests a certain schedule and if I need to lower the number of times that these tests a performed I can simply edit one single schedule to allow fewer periods where the tests are enabled.
By using test intervals to accomplish this I'll have to manually decrease the test interval for 300 tests spread across my entire tree structure every time the load gets too high.
Hope I was able to clarify how the two issues are related.
/Kasper