3 ms·

I like to use wrk[1] for quick/spot testing: * It allows me to focus on latency versus throughput independently * It has tools for testing performance on pipe

by geocar 9y ago

I like to use wrk[1] for quick/spot testing: * It allows me to focus on latency versus throughput independently * It has tools for testing performance on pipelined requests (very important in my space) * It supports scripting complex authentication processes (like magic headers and oauth2) * It supports scripting fuzzing (random values) for URLs and POST requests [1]: https://github.com/wg/wrk https://github.com/wg/wrk For wide-area load testing, I simply buy some advertising since that gives me cheap access to millions of simultaneous users.

anonacct37 9y ago
We use wrk since we are often load testing fairly simple services, occasionally with some Lua for cache busting. It's a great tool. Would love if it supported http2 since I work on CDN type stuff where that matters. I love your 2nd approach (advertising). Any pointers to how to get started?
- geocar 9y ago
  go-wrk[1] promises HTTP/2 support and is similar to wrk. I don't have a lot of experience with it though. [1]: https://github.com/tsliwowicz/go-wrk https://github.com/tsliwowicz/go-wrk If you want to purchase advertising for this purpose, I'm happy to help with this. My contact details are linked through my profile. - Your HTTP endpoints will need to be whitelisted with traffic quality groups and creative scanners (This can take a week or so). I recommend using a separate dns domain name for this since adblockers tend to subscribe to these lists. - Your JavaScript should not be abusive. There are subjective tests for this. Generally doing an image request or some POST data of a few kb isn't going to be an issue. Some ad servers (like sizmek) download 2mb "test images" to exercise their bandwidth from some locations (like the US). - Costs vary based on device, region, the web page the ads are on, and silly things like demographic. Some of these factors are interesting to benchmarkers but others are not. Thinking about what you actually need to test can help keep your costs efficient.
togusa2017 9y ago
I agree. I also love wrk and it is pretty useful and allows scripting

by geocar 9y ago

anonacct37 9y ago

We use wrk since we are often load testing fairly simple services, occasionally with some Lua for cache busting. It's a great tool. Would love if it supported http2 since I work on CDN type stuff where that matters. I love your 2nd approach (advertising). Any pointers to how to get started?

geocar 9y ago
go-wrk[1] promises HTTP/2 support and is similar to wrk. I don't have a lot of experience with it though. [1]: https://github.com/tsliwowicz/go-wrk https://github.com/tsliwowicz/go-wrk If you want to purchase advertising for this purpose, I'm happy to help with this. My contact details are linked through my profile. - Your HTTP endpoints will need to be whitelisted with traffic quality groups and creative scanners (This can take a week or so). I recommend using a separate dns domain name for this since adblockers tend to subscribe to these lists. - Your JavaScript should not be abusive. There are subjective tests for this. Generally doing an image request or some POST data of a few kb isn't going to be an issue. Some ad servers (like sizmek) download 2mb "test images" to exercise their bandwidth from some locations (like the US). - Costs vary based on device, region, the web page the ads are on, and silly things like demographic. Some of these factors are interesting to benchmarkers but others are not. Thinking about what you actually need to test can help keep your costs efficient.

togusa2017 9y ago

I agree. I also love wrk and it is pretty useful and allows scripting