6 ms·

Ask HN: please review our online load testing service - loadimpact.com

104 points by rlonn 18y ago

mechanical_fish 18y ago
You passed the first test: I asked myself "wait, how is this not a one-stop-shopping service for aspiring, technically incompetent DOS attackers"? And I found your FAQ and answered that question inside of 45 seconds: http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7 http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7
- jakewolf 18y ago
  Still the basic test uses up some good bandwidth. What about the impact on shared hosts who sometimes severely limit the number of connections?
- davidw 18y ago
  Ok, but what if a number of people all try the free test with some site?
  - teej 18y ago
    Fake it and show the results from the last test to that site.
- rlonn 18y ago
  We have a ton of security features to limit abuse of the system. A site that cannot handle the impact of a single basic (free) test can be DOS:ed once, yes. But we have a limit on how often we will generate load to (or from, really) individual IP addresses, so the second or third time in a day someone tries to "load test" the same site, they will be denied their test. This means you can at most DOS-attack a small site a few minutes per day. We hope it will be enough to make would-be abusers go somewhere else - i.e. not worth their time.
  - patio11 18y ago
    You may want to put a per-domain-per-day limit in there somewhere, otherwise you are going to have a very stressful day the first time someone on SomethingAwful hears of this wonderful new toy. (Its a DDOS in a can if you have a few dozen people capable of reading directions.)
    - wesley 18y ago
      Or simply add a way to claim a server by uploading a specific file to verify ownership. You probably don't want to do this because it would make the process much harder, but you can allow it in reverse; claim to deny load tests for a domain.
      - rlonn 18y ago
        We actually have that feature also :-) Although it doesn't kick in until you try and run a test with higher load levels. Then you need to have a "loadimpact.txt" file in the root of your server, or the test won't start.
        imp 18y ago
        Like others have suggested, please require that before any testing. I like the concept of your site, but I really don't want people DOS'ing my site for any amount of time, even a few minutes. I know they can do it manually, but if you give a nice easy interface to help even noobs then that makes me a little scared of your site. I'm guessing that you want to give a "live demo" to people, but I'm sure you could just show a demo report of a couple sites that have already been tested.
        rlonn 18y ago
        We need to be more open about what security measures we have built into the service, I think. I can tell you right now that the free tests most people are running have a built-in cutoff feature that aborts the test if it detects that the server on the other end is starting to respond significantly slower than it did at the start of the test. Example: the test starts by simulating 10 clients. The average page load time measured is 500 ms. The test then moves on to test using 20 clients. If the average page load time goes above 1 second (twice what it was originally), the test will be aborted. We have a general security philosophy that is based on different levels of trust. An anonymous user is trusted the least, a registered but non-paying user is trusted a little bit more, and a paying user is trusted even more. The level of trust determines how often you can run tests, how much data your tests are allowed to transfer, how often you can place load on individual destination servers (IPs), what settings you can make for your tests, etc.
- andrewljohnson 18y ago
  You failed my first test. I tried to load test my start-up - www.trailbehind.com - using your free service. However, it said I had already tried to load test my site and it failed. I went through your registration process, and got nothing. Very disappointing - the type of thing that will make me never look at your website again and scoff about it to my friends should they bring it up. And a couple other nits: 1) Your registration page where I choose my plan type is not intuitive. Maybe it's because green is not a good color to call attention to stuff. 2) Your Register and Cancel buttons should be different colors. I clicked the wrong one and had to redo my registration. 3) Don't ask for number of employees and industry. They're not required and they will hurt your conversion rate slightly. And it indicates to me you might sell my data.
  - rlonn 18y ago
    Sorry to hear you were disappointed. We will try and improve the registration procedure, and also the feedback to users as regarding why load tests are denied (often, it is because some resource used on your site have been used by a lot of other sites aswell, and our system doesn't want to strain that particular resource/object - but we have to be clearer about this). Employees and industry is there for us to learn who our customers/users are. This is a new type of service, and we need information on who are target audience are, because we frankly don't know that yet. These values are optional to fill in, though. Should we be more informative, maybe, and tell people that we will absolutely not under any circumstances give out information about them to a third party - would that reassure you? Finally, your confirmation email might have been delayed as there was a DNS issue yesterday that caused outgoing email to be queued for a while. Apologies about that too and thank you for the feedback. It's very nice of you to give it even though you weren't happy with the service. Negative (but constructive) feedback is the most valuable of all for us.
  - lacker 18y ago
    Sorry AJ - I had already tried to load test trailbehind earlier ;-)
epi0Bauqu 18y ago
On the free results page at the bottom there are some FAQ graphs, but they all link to the same place.
- rlonn 18y ago
  About the graphs, we're going to add more info about different graph types but for now we just have one help text explaining "strange" graphs.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
vaksel 18y ago
I think your pricing is pretty much way off. Why would I want to pay you $40/mo, if I'm paying $3/mo for shared hosting that I know can handle 250 users? And its the same way through out. Even at the highest level, it'd be cheaper for me to lease a second dedicated server to spread the load, than it is to pay you for your service. And I don't think this is something that should be a monthly service. I only want to check my load once in a while to see if its doing fine, so I think by asking so much money on a monthly basis, you are driving users away. I think you'll be better off doing it as one off results. i.e. the $499/mo option, should be a $29.99 one time fee for 3 reports
- teej 18y ago
  I disagree with you on both points. First - the people on $3 /mo shared hosting are not in the target market for this service. If you are on shared hosting, you don't need loadtesting. Second - I think subscription is fine. As a subscription, I recognize that I -should be- load testing on a regular basis. As a-la-carte, I am much more likely to say "umpteen dollars?I can do my own loadtest for cheaper then that."
  - mixmax 18y ago
    I'll second that. For personal use it may seem like a lot of money, but for the target groups that needs this kind of service it's cheap. It's not just about the cost of servers, it's much more the time spent doing it.
- rlonn 18y ago
  We have found that some people like using the service as an optimization/development tool. Starting a load test is painless enough that they can write some code, test it with our service, change some things, test again, etc. and sometimes get huge performance gains. Buying another server gives you a 2x performance increase, but it will cost you forever. Optimizing your code can give you 20x performance increase and only cost you while you're working on the optimizations. But I guess it depends on how you use the service. For people who just want to verify performance occasionally, what you write makes sense, and we're going to create a one-time (or maybe "one-day") offer also that you can buy every time you need to run a test.
caustic 18y ago
What would happen if I tried load testing loadimpact.com?
- kevTheDev 18y ago
  I tried it, and it wouldn't let me as it had been tested too much in the last 24 hours
  - there 18y ago
    it let me run a test on http://127.0.0.1/ http://127.0.0.1/
    - rlonn 18y ago
      Oops, I'm filing a bug report about that right away. Thanks.
      - there 18y ago
        also, it would be trivial to create a dns record that points to 127.0.0.1 or the ip of loadimpact.com, so you may want to blacklist things after resolving.
        rlonn 18y ago
        Yeah we have a restriction on number of started tests to the same hostname address, but it is actually more or less redundant as we have also several checks per IP address. I might as well explain how it works as people seem to mention these things a lot here: when we know what URLs we have to load in order to load a web page (i.e. when we have generated a load script for the test) we find out all unique host addresses involved, then resolve the IP addresses to all these hosts, then we check how many times the last 24 hours we have performed tests where these IPs have been involved, how many bytes we have transferred from and to each of these IPs the last 24 hours, and how many transactions we have subjected these IPs to the last 24 hours. If any of these values exceed certain predefined tresholds, we deny the test.
wesley 18y ago
So, what can I learn about these results: http://loadimpact.com/result/www.improvingtheweb.com-b75533d03c65a3892b30ce9dbb9051f9 http://loadimpact.com/result/www.improvingtheweb.com-b75533d...
- rlonn 18y ago
  The graph is pretty flat, which indicates the test is not really putting any stress on your server. The load added does not make much of a difference for improvingtheweb.com. One thing we need to put more effort in, I think, is to communicate these things. What can you learn from a graph, what are the prerequisites for getting good test results (in this case, more load would be a good thing). I think there is a lot we need to do to explain things better. That is the most difficult part of all.
  - yan 18y ago
    I think there's also a lot of value in personalized recommendations. i.e. Load increased with the following stress pattern, which can indicate an improvement is needed in areas A, B, and C.
    - cedsav 18y ago
      second that. Maybe something similar to ySlow? http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow
- d13hard 18y ago
  the way you learn from testing is by looking at resource use, throughput, paging, io etc on your box. i'm not how a remote service enables this. man vmstat hackers
agotterer 18y ago
You guys should offer a daily or limited time use rate. I would think many sites dont need to load test every month. But instead when they are first building an infrastructure or making upgrades. One of the sites I am working on now is moving to a new codebase. We wanted to load test for a few hours but found everything we looked at to be too expensive.
- rlonn 18y ago
  That is actually on its way also. We're going to offer a "single test" option, where a user gets to use the system for an hour. But maybe we should make it 24 hours instead?
  - agotterer 18y ago
    Maybe charge a similar way to how you are doing monthly... 1-5 tests are X dollars 5-20 tests X more dollars. A single test is only useful if you want know what your system can physically handle. If you are trying to tweak settings to get the most optimal configuration, multiple tests will obviously be needed. Can you handle very large sites? I assume your system is in the cloud and scales as needed?
    - rlonn 18y ago
      We don't want to make the different subscription offers too complicated, which is why we've stayed away from having people pay per number of tests executed, or similar. I agree that people will want to tweak and run several tests, but a 1-day subscription sounds pretty reasonable then, I think, no? We currently simulate max 5,000 concurrent users on a site and that is something our own servers can handle, so right now we're not using cloud services. We do have support for running the backend on a cloud though - we've been testing it and it works very well. If customers start asking about running larger tests, then we will probably implement a cloud backend mode that will feature a much, much larger traffic-generating capability (but also be more expensive).
      - agotterer 18y ago
quickpost 18y ago
Under the "Need help interpreting your graph?" section all the graphs lead to the same explanation! Need to have a different explanation for each one.
chops 18y ago
Maybe I'm just retarded, but I couldn't find the answer to my question on your site. Does your service just pound the exact page that's targeted, or does it follow links, submit forms, etc to try to simulate actual users?
- rlonn 18y ago
  The simplest test you can run will just load a singe page, and all its dependencies (images etc) over and over again. However, if you register an account you can create your own load scripts that load different pages, with pauses in between. Paying users also get access to the recorder feature which allows you to record a session that you run in a new browser window - you surf around your site and click on things, POST forms, etc and when you're done you have a load script automatically generated that will let your simulated clients do the same thing. We don't currently have any "crawler" mode though, where the system tries to follow links etc on the site automatically.
  - imp 18y ago
    Wow, the recorder option sounds really cool. I didn't see that when I first scanned the site. Maybe highlight a bit more somewhere.
    - rlonn 18y ago
      Yeah we only allow paying users to even see the recorder, which is probably something we need to change I think. We want to give paying users extra features, but we also need to show people what extra features they can get, otherwise they won't know if it's worth to start paying. I guess more help/documentation would help, but it would be nice if there was a way for people to test a feature before they sign up to pay. Suggestions are appreciated.
  - ericlavigne 18y ago
    Recorder is an important part of load testing, but it sounds even more useful for functional regression testing. Record common or expensive behaviors for load testing. Record obscure or complicated behaviors so that loadimpact can tell you when you accidentally broke something.
pierrefar 18y ago
How is it different from the freely available ab and httperf? Refs: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/ab.html http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/ab.html http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/httperf/ http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/httperf/
- rlonn 18y ago
  It depends in what way you mean. It generates traffic and measures performance in a similar way as ab/httperf. The biggest difference is that it is an online service, which means you don't need to own any servers yourself to run ab or httperf on. You don't have to install or configure ab/httperf, and you get results nicely formatted as graphs with no extra work on your part and test configurations and results are always available to you, on the web. If you have the time, knowledge, interest and a server to spare, then ab or httperf (or I would recommend the Grinder - http://grinder.sourceforge.net/ http://grinder.sourceforge.net/ ) is definitely worth a try however.
jrockway 18y ago
Very nice. Are you guys using any off-the-shelf tools for the load testing, or is it all custom? (and if so, what language? Erlang?) Also, is there a way to simulate more than 5000 users?
- rlonn 18y ago
  It is mostly custom. The load generator is written in C and using libCURL - http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl 5,000 users is what one single instance of the non-threaded load generator can simulate today. We have some optimizations we can make that should improve this though, and we are also going to implement multi-source/multi-program load generation that means we can distribute the load generation for a single test over several processes and several load generator hosts. Using only our own infrastructure I think we can scale the system quite a lot, but obviously, if we want to run really large simulations with several hundred thousand, or millions, of simulated users, then we need to buy cloud server capacity.
  - d13hard 18y ago
    how is your tool better than siege, which is in my opinion the best tool available
modoc 18y ago
I really like both the idea and the site. One feature request that would have me signup in an instant is if you could provide web service load testing as well. I'd also like to know more about the session recorder and if I can feed parameterized data into the scripts.
- rlonn 18y ago
  Thank you, and while I'm at it: thank you very much everybody for all the great feedback. It is very appreciated! The session recorder is pretty cool, we think. We have managed to make it zero-configuration (i.e. no user configuration necessary) while still being able to handle client-side javascript. There are other HTTP session recorders out there, but to be able to handle javascript they're usually implemented as a true HTTP proxy that you have to configure your browser to use, or they're a browser plugin that you have to download and install. The recorder outputs a load script that you can edit afterwards, if you want. However, the load script is currently more of a "list" of things to load, with pauses in between. It has no logic, conditional statements etc. and does not support parameterized data. This is something we intend to change soon though. It just needs some thought so we don't open up new possibilities for abuse/overuse of resources when we let users execute their own load script code on our systems.
- kleevr 18y ago
  I second web service load testing.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
jasonkester 18y ago
Nice effort! After a few weeks of mediocre "review my site" submissions here, it's nice to see something come through that I would actually use! You did a good job of making the reports and graphs pretty while still keeping a clean feel to the whole site. There seems to be a good amount of polish and attention to detail there too. I don't feel scared to click anything while the test is running for fear of breaking something or redirecting me to a FAQ page and canceling the test. I look forward to seeing how this pans out.
- jasonkester 18y ago
  Ooh. Spoke too soon. Registration after finishing a test is really really painful. - shelled off to the Pick a plan screen - pick the free plan - nothing happens, so click it a few more times - scroll down to see if I missed something and find WAAY too many required fields - click register - screen scrolls up to the top, but nothing else happens - click register again - "this email is already registered" - find login box, type in email an password - get the homepage and a "Account not confirmed" message - open my email client, find the mail, click the link - get a "confirmed" page, and I STILL need to go type my email and password in again. Guys, you're killing me. Such a good product, with such a terrible registration experience. It's completely unnecessary. Ask for a username and password, and let me get on with trying your thing. If I like it I'll engage with you further. That's Startup Usability 101. Fix it and maybe you've got a shot.
  - rlonn 18y ago
    Uh oh, but this is the kind of feedback we really need, so thanks a lot. The registration procedure is perhaps the most important part of all to get streamlined. What happened was that the free plan was preselected when you entered the registration page. This means that nothing happened when you clicked it (as it was already selected). When you then clicked "register" you probably got a "Registration successful - an email has been sent to you for account confirmation" message at the top of the screen, can you have missed that? Then when you click again on "Register" you get the error message that you're already registered. Maybe we should think about transporting the user to another page when they choose a plan/a subscription. Have less things on one and the same page. Your experience suggests that that might be a good idea I think. User interfaces are not easy, and it is so hard to see things with objective eyes as a developer.
jey 18y ago
I tried to test my site (NSFW: http://fapseek.com http://fapseek.com) and got the message "This configuration contains addresses that has been tested too many times the last 24 hours." I assumed someone else had tested the site and that I would be able to test after logging in and verifying ownership of the domain. Even after creating an account, logging in, and creating the loadimpact.txt file, I'm still getting the same error message about my address having already been tested too many times.
- rlonn 18y ago
  That's our somewhat restrictive security features that notice some object being loaded as part of your webpage, an object that other sites also use. For example, many sites load urchin.js from google-analytics.com. This means that the daily load our system allows itself to subject google-analytics.com to will quickly be reached. Anyone trying to start a new test for a webpage that loads urchin.js will then be denied to run their test. We have a list of URLS/sites that are exempted from these checks, but this list needs to be populated. So far we only have a few entries on it (like google-analytics). It seems your site loads things from googleapis.com so I added an exception for that address now. Try again and see if it works. We probably need to work on the information to users whenever a test is denied also. If you know what the offending URL is, you can remove it from your load script and run the test without it.
  - cedsav 18y ago
    yep, loading javascript libraries from CDN is more and more common. I'd suggest you add ajax.googleapis.com and yui.yahooapis.com (there's probably more) [Edit] you mentioned googleapis.com already.
  - jey 18y ago
    Thanks, that fixed it. It would be clearer if you included the offending URLs in the error message.
  - tdavis 18y ago
    Might want to add Cachefly, too? I think this might be what is stopping me from testing our site, but it doesn't specify so...
jusob 18y ago
How does it compare to http://litmusapp.com/ http://litmusapp.com/ ?
- timf 18y ago
  Another online service is http://www.soasta.com http://www.soasta.com which is $1k/hour (cloud-buzzword heavy but slick UI)
  - rlonn 18y ago
    Litmus is more about functionality/compatibility testing, unless I'm mistaken, while our service is all about performance testing. Soasta does essentially the same thing as we do although they are a lot more expensive and aim for larger clients. Traditionally, load testing has been both difficult and expensive, which is why mostly larger organizations have been doing it. Soasta I think has therefore aimed for this segment while we're betting on a larger, but so far unproven, market among small- and medium sized companies.
    - timf 18y ago
      Best of luck to you, I think it's a good strategy. I'd be surprised to find any small business that would pay Soasta at those prices. $1k/hour is the kind of money where I would hire someone instead to build a in-house solution via EC2 etc.
raamdev 18y ago
Here's the test on Google.com: http://loadimpact.com/result/google.com-398c66a059f3ab3c096be74fd5d2dab1 http://loadimpact.com/result/google.com-398c66a059f3ab3c096b...
- rlonn 18y ago
  Strange, 50 simulated clients don't seem to stress Google much :-)
omarish 18y ago
Nice site, but how is this different from siege? http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2007/12/06/siege-an-httphttps-stress-tester/ http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2007/12/06/siege-an-httphttps-stre...
- rlonn 18y ago
  Siege is just another load testing software. The new thing here is that we offer load testing as an online service. No need to install, configure or maintain any special software or hardware. Test configurations and results are always accessible, on the web. If you're interested in running your own load testing software I would recommend the Grinder - http://grinder.sourceforge.net http://grinder.sourceforge.net - which is very nice and flexible. If you need to generate a lot of load, curl-loader might be of interest - http://curl-loader.sourceforge.net http://curl-loader.sourceforge.net
d13hard 18y ago
no, i'm sorry. the whole point of load testing is that i am (for example) looking at my vmstat output etc DURING the test...thats a whole lot easier if i just fire up siege or httperf or ab at my console. i'm sorry hackers, you need to know how to do this yourself. just hearing someone tell you your site is slow is useless unless you know WHY. knowing WHY means looking at your system in detail as well as your site design and achitecture. there is no "for dummies" route here. just giving me pretty graphs saying my site is slow is pointless. its so trivial to run siege...why would you pay someone to do this? is their load tool even as good as siege? how can they possibly match the pummeling i can deliver on the LAN. load testing is best done locally. i won't be downmodded by anyone who does load testing as part of their actual job
huhtenberg 18y ago
Welcome to my IP blacklist. But, seriously, this should be strictly an opt-in service. Only if there is a loadimpact.txt on the server, you run your tests. Otherwise - refuse and explain that the server admin has not consented to the stress testing using your service. I'm sure you have some DoS provisions in place, but in the end it really boils down to the fact that if you screw up, then it's my server that gets DoS'd.
- volida 18y ago
  this is true. Their servers shouldn't test if they don't find a specified file, like Google does with Webmaster tools.
  - timf 18y ago
    Exactly, "claim your site"
  - bprater 18y ago
    Yep, it only takes a second to do, too. Definitely consider this strategy.
- a-priori 18y ago
  This could be a line in a robots.txt: Allow-Stress-Testing: * The default would be to not allow stress testing of any resources.
- copenja 18y ago
  It already requires a file named loadimpact.txt on your server to test high loads. See here: http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7 http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7
  - sh1mmer 18y ago
    That's not really good enough. It's unacceptable to let random members of the public use your services to "test" someone else's site. It's bad form let alone the breach of the ToS on 90% of sites.
lazyant 18y ago
I see a potential legal problem with the way the stress test is "authorized". The thing is that web server access (putting the "loadimpact.txt" file in the server) is not exactly the same as web site ownership. My paranoid mind can think of an scenario like this (INAL so I maybe be off): a web master asks for the load test, this is done and the site goes down for a while, incurring a monetary loss (loss in sales for example). The owner sues the testing company for a 'DoS' and the testing company has no way to prove that it was authorized (what text file, there's none!). I personally wouldn't do a stress test on a server without written authorization of the owner. The way I would implement this on an online service is by asking the target web site and the email address, where this address has to be in the public whois information. Then I'd send a special message to that email address and by replying the owner gives authorization (this way I'd have something from the official email address). This is not a 'written authorization' but comes as close as it can and the whois email address is used for domain transactions etc so it has the same level of protection/legal procedure behind.
simplegeek 18y ago
I'm interested in giving it a shot but site isn't opening. Is it just me?
- asmosoinio 18y ago
  http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/loadimpact.com/ http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/loadimpact.com/
leftnode 18y ago
I'm interested in how many paid registrations posting here on HN resulted in. It seems like a pretty positive response here and a great tool! Great work!
- rlonn 18y ago
  Thank you. We have had a ton of visits and a good number of registrations, although only a handful of paid accounts as of yet. But that's OK, it's natural that people want to try before they buy. We hope they'll convert once they have tested the service a bit. If you ask me, however, I'd say that the feedback we are getting here is what's really invaluable. It will help us improve the service a lot.
asnyder 18y ago
This is a good start, though not as comprehensive as we're used to. Currently we use WAPT which is significantly more comprehensive while still maintaining the ease of use that most other comprehensive tools lack. That said, it would be great to incorporate some of their features such as different scenarios, load patterns, particular series of pages, random, etc. It would be great to not have to have a dedicated resource to run the stress tests, it's also tricky to know if the local bandwidth can properly emulate x number of machines.
sh1mmer 18y ago
You are testing from Europe somewhere by the look of it. Many people have scattered servers now. It would be good to be able to test from non-European locations.
- rlonn 18y ago
  We have two load generator nodes right now. One in Stockholm, Sweden and one in Chicago, US. The default node is the Stockholm one, however, and only paying users are allowed to choose what load generator they use. If people want more locations we'll be happy to set up more nodes in the future.
paraschopra 18y ago
I get this message on my personal domain: "This configuration contains addresses that has been tested too many times the last 24 hours" Does this mean somebody is DOSsing my site through your service?
- rlonn 18y ago
  No, it is most likely because your site is loading some object - like urchin.js from google-analytics.com - that a lot of other tests have been loading also. That means that our security checks will think someone is trying to DOS google-analytics.com and so stop your test. We have a list of exclusions that the system should not bother checking (such as google-analytics.com) but the list is not complete so people run into this problem frequently right now. I am going to fix so that we inform people what the offending URL/object is (rather than just saying "one of the systems involved in the test..."), so they can remove it from their load scripts (if you're a registered user you can edit your load scripts before starting a load test) and also contact us and ask us to put new systems into our exclusion list.
vladimir 18y ago
Of course you should permit to run such tests only if you are sure you are dealing with site owners or their representatives. You can use the system that is used in Google webmasters tools - users can confirm their ownership by adding specific document or meta-tag. Also - registration system's usability is not perfect. But the idea is great - I would use this service.
- rlonn 18y ago
  Yeah, this is something we have thought about also. We already have this security feature that uses a special file (loadimpact.txt) on the target system(s) to verify that it's OK to run large-scale tests. We should probably improve on that and allow people to bypass the other checks if they have this file. It is the safest way we have to verify that a test is legal, so we should give it more priority before other checks.
brandinfection 18y ago
Cool service! I tried it out and might get an account for testing with more users.
rubentopo 18y ago
Works well, i did like it, however i have two comments: -Please be able to get http://www.mywebsite.com http://www.mywebsite.com , www.mywebsite.com , mywebsite.com , http://mywebsite.com http://mywebsite.com and lastly the good case http://www.mywebsite.com http://www.mywebsite.com -I believe that you'd have much more success if you charged on a test basis, your monthly billing might scare people away.
luminousbit 18y ago
I love the site, HATE the pricing. I'd really like to pay for the service, but what I REALLY need is: 1) Run several low user tests (200-300) to tweak server settings, app code, etc. 2) Then run one or two big tests (1000+) just once to see the results. I MIGHT need this at most once a month. That just isn't worth $200 per month. I'd much prefer a subscription for the lower levels of consistent use, and then be able to purchase an additional once-off very large test for maybe $10-20 each.

104 points by rlonn 18y ago

You passed the first test: I asked myself "wait, how is this not a one-stop-shopping service for aspiring, technically incompetent DOS attackers"? And I found your FAQ and answered that question inside of 45 seconds: http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7 http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7

jakewolf 18y ago
Still the basic test uses up some good bandwidth. What about the impact on shared hosts who sometimes severely limit the number of connections?
davidw 18y ago
Ok, but what if a number of people all try the free test with some site?
- teej 18y ago
  Fake it and show the results from the last test to that site.
rlonn 18y ago
We have a ton of security features to limit abuse of the system. A site that cannot handle the impact of a single basic (free) test can be DOS:ed once, yes. But we have a limit on how often we will generate load to (or from, really) individual IP addresses, so the second or third time in a day someone tries to "load test" the same site, they will be denied their test. This means you can at most DOS-attack a small site a few minutes per day. We hope it will be enough to make would-be abusers go somewhere else - i.e. not worth their time.
- patio11 18y ago
  You may want to put a per-domain-per-day limit in there somewhere, otherwise you are going to have a very stressful day the first time someone on SomethingAwful hears of this wonderful new toy. (Its a DDOS in a can if you have a few dozen people capable of reading directions.)
  - wesley 18y ago
    Or simply add a way to claim a server by uploading a specific file to verify ownership. You probably don't want to do this because it would make the process much harder, but you can allow it in reverse; claim to deny load tests for a domain.
    - rlonn 18y ago
      We actually have that feature also :-) Although it doesn't kick in until you try and run a test with higher load levels. Then you need to have a "loadimpact.txt" file in the root of your server, or the test won't start.
      - imp 18y ago
        Like others have suggested, please require that before any testing. I like the concept of your site, but I really don't want people DOS'ing my site for any amount of time, even a few minutes. I know they can do it manually, but if you give a nice easy interface to help even noobs then that makes me a little scared of your site. I'm guessing that you want to give a "live demo" to people, but I'm sure you could just show a demo report of a couple sites that have already been tested.
        rlonn 18y ago
        We need to be more open about what security measures we have built into the service, I think. I can tell you right now that the free tests most people are running have a built-in cutoff feature that aborts the test if it detects that the server on the other end is starting to respond significantly slower than it did at the start of the test. Example: the test starts by simulating 10 clients. The average page load time measured is 500 ms. The test then moves on to test using 20 clients. If the average page load time goes above 1 second (twice what it was originally), the test will be aborted. We have a general security philosophy that is based on different levels of trust. An anonymous user is trusted the least, a registered but non-paying user is trusted a little bit more, and a paying user is trusted even more. The level of trust determines how often you can run tests, how much data your tests are allowed to transfer, how often you can place load on individual destination servers (IPs), what settings you can make for your tests, etc.
andrewljohnson 18y ago
You failed my first test. I tried to load test my start-up - www.trailbehind.com - using your free service. However, it said I had already tried to load test my site and it failed. I went through your registration process, and got nothing. Very disappointing - the type of thing that will make me never look at your website again and scoff about it to my friends should they bring it up. And a couple other nits: 1) Your registration page where I choose my plan type is not intuitive. Maybe it's because green is not a good color to call attention to stuff. 2) Your Register and Cancel buttons should be different colors. I clicked the wrong one and had to redo my registration. 3) Don't ask for number of employees and industry. They're not required and they will hurt your conversion rate slightly. And it indicates to me you might sell my data.
- rlonn 18y ago
  Sorry to hear you were disappointed. We will try and improve the registration procedure, and also the feedback to users as regarding why load tests are denied (often, it is because some resource used on your site have been used by a lot of other sites aswell, and our system doesn't want to strain that particular resource/object - but we have to be clearer about this). Employees and industry is there for us to learn who our customers/users are. This is a new type of service, and we need information on who are target audience are, because we frankly don't know that yet. These values are optional to fill in, though. Should we be more informative, maybe, and tell people that we will absolutely not under any circumstances give out information about them to a third party - would that reassure you? Finally, your confirmation email might have been delayed as there was a DNS issue yesterday that caused outgoing email to be queued for a while. Apologies about that too and thank you for the feedback. It's very nice of you to give it even though you weren't happy with the service. Negative (but constructive) feedback is the most valuable of all for us.
- lacker 18y ago
  Sorry AJ - I had already tried to load test trailbehind earlier ;-)

epi0Bauqu 18y ago

On the free results page at the bottom there are some FAQ graphs, but they all link to the same place.

rlonn 18y ago
About the graphs, we're going to add more info about different graph types but for now we just have one help text explaining "strange" graphs.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

vaksel 18y ago

I think your pricing is pretty much way off. Why would I want to pay you $40/mo, if I'm paying $3/mo for shared hosting that I know can handle 250 users? And its the same way through out. Even at the highest level, it'd be cheaper for me to lease a second dedicated server to spread the load, than it is to pay you for your service. And I don't think this is something that should be a monthly service. I only want to check my load once in a while to see if its doing fine, so I think by asking so much money on a monthly basis, you are driving users away. I think you'll be better off doing it as one off results. i.e. the $499/mo option, should be a $29.99 one time fee for 3 reports

teej 18y ago
I disagree with you on both points. First - the people on $3 /mo shared hosting are not in the target market for this service. If you are on shared hosting, you don't need loadtesting. Second - I think subscription is fine. As a subscription, I recognize that I -should be- load testing on a regular basis. As a-la-carte, I am much more likely to say "umpteen dollars?I can do my own loadtest for cheaper then that."
- mixmax 18y ago
  I'll second that. For personal use it may seem like a lot of money, but for the target groups that needs this kind of service it's cheap. It's not just about the cost of servers, it's much more the time spent doing it.
rlonn 18y ago
We have found that some people like using the service as an optimization/development tool. Starting a load test is painless enough that they can write some code, test it with our service, change some things, test again, etc. and sometimes get huge performance gains. Buying another server gives you a 2x performance increase, but it will cost you forever. Optimizing your code can give you 20x performance increase and only cost you while you're working on the optimizations. But I guess it depends on how you use the service. For people who just want to verify performance occasionally, what you write makes sense, and we're going to create a one-time (or maybe "one-day") offer also that you can buy every time you need to run a test.

caustic 18y ago

What would happen if I tried load testing loadimpact.com?

kevTheDev 18y ago
I tried it, and it wouldn't let me as it had been tested too much in the last 24 hours
- there 18y ago
  it let me run a test on http://127.0.0.1/ http://127.0.0.1/
  - rlonn 18y ago
    Oops, I'm filing a bug report about that right away. Thanks.
    - there 18y ago
      also, it would be trivial to create a dns record that points to 127.0.0.1 or the ip of loadimpact.com, so you may want to blacklist things after resolving.
      - rlonn 18y ago
        Yeah we have a restriction on number of started tests to the same hostname address, but it is actually more or less redundant as we have also several checks per IP address. I might as well explain how it works as people seem to mention these things a lot here: when we know what URLs we have to load in order to load a web page (i.e. when we have generated a load script for the test) we find out all unique host addresses involved, then resolve the IP addresses to all these hosts, then we check how many times the last 24 hours we have performed tests where these IPs have been involved, how many bytes we have transferred from and to each of these IPs the last 24 hours, and how many transactions we have subjected these IPs to the last 24 hours. If any of these values exceed certain predefined tresholds, we deny the test.

wesley 18y ago

So, what can I learn about these results: http://loadimpact.com/result/www.improvingtheweb.com-b75533d03c65a3892b30ce9dbb9051f9 http://loadimpact.com/result/www.improvingtheweb.com-b75533d...

rlonn 18y ago
The graph is pretty flat, which indicates the test is not really putting any stress on your server. The load added does not make much of a difference for improvingtheweb.com. One thing we need to put more effort in, I think, is to communicate these things. What can you learn from a graph, what are the prerequisites for getting good test results (in this case, more load would be a good thing). I think there is a lot we need to do to explain things better. That is the most difficult part of all.
- yan 18y ago
  I think there's also a lot of value in personalized recommendations. i.e. Load increased with the following stress pattern, which can indicate an improvement is needed in areas A, B, and C.
  - cedsav 18y ago
    second that. Maybe something similar to ySlow? http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow
d13hard 18y ago
the way you learn from testing is by looking at resource use, throughput, paging, io etc on your box. i'm not how a remote service enables this. man vmstat hackers

agotterer 18y ago

You guys should offer a daily or limited time use rate. I would think many sites dont need to load test every month. But instead when they are first building an infrastructure or making upgrades. One of the sites I am working on now is moving to a new codebase. We wanted to load test for a few hours but found everything we looked at to be too expensive.

rlonn 18y ago
That is actually on its way also. We're going to offer a "single test" option, where a user gets to use the system for an hour. But maybe we should make it 24 hours instead?
- agotterer 18y ago
  Maybe charge a similar way to how you are doing monthly... 1-5 tests are X dollars 5-20 tests X more dollars. A single test is only useful if you want know what your system can physically handle. If you are trying to tweak settings to get the most optimal configuration, multiple tests will obviously be needed. Can you handle very large sites? I assume your system is in the cloud and scales as needed?
  - rlonn 18y ago
    We don't want to make the different subscription offers too complicated, which is why we've stayed away from having people pay per number of tests executed, or similar. I agree that people will want to tweak and run several tests, but a 1-day subscription sounds pretty reasonable then, I think, no? We currently simulate max 5,000 concurrent users on a site and that is something our own servers can handle, so right now we're not using cloud services. We do have support for running the backend on a cloud though - we've been testing it and it works very well. If customers start asking about running larger tests, then we will probably implement a cloud backend mode that will feature a much, much larger traffic-generating capability (but also be more expensive).
    - agotterer 18y ago

quickpost 18y ago

Under the "Need help interpreting your graph?" section all the graphs lead to the same explanation! Need to have a different explanation for each one.

chops 18y ago

Maybe I'm just retarded, but I couldn't find the answer to my question on your site. Does your service just pound the exact page that's targeted, or does it follow links, submit forms, etc to try to simulate actual users?

rlonn 18y ago
The simplest test you can run will just load a singe page, and all its dependencies (images etc) over and over again. However, if you register an account you can create your own load scripts that load different pages, with pauses in between. Paying users also get access to the recorder feature which allows you to record a session that you run in a new browser window - you surf around your site and click on things, POST forms, etc and when you're done you have a load script automatically generated that will let your simulated clients do the same thing. We don't currently have any "crawler" mode though, where the system tries to follow links etc on the site automatically.
- imp 18y ago
  Wow, the recorder option sounds really cool. I didn't see that when I first scanned the site. Maybe highlight a bit more somewhere.
  - rlonn 18y ago
    Yeah we only allow paying users to even see the recorder, which is probably something we need to change I think. We want to give paying users extra features, but we also need to show people what extra features they can get, otherwise they won't know if it's worth to start paying. I guess more help/documentation would help, but it would be nice if there was a way for people to test a feature before they sign up to pay. Suggestions are appreciated.
- ericlavigne 18y ago
  Recorder is an important part of load testing, but it sounds even more useful for functional regression testing. Record common or expensive behaviors for load testing. Record obscure or complicated behaviors so that loadimpact can tell you when you accidentally broke something.

pierrefar 18y ago

How is it different from the freely available ab and httperf? Refs: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/ab.html http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/ab.html http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/httperf/ http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/httperf/

rlonn 18y ago
It depends in what way you mean. It generates traffic and measures performance in a similar way as ab/httperf. The biggest difference is that it is an online service, which means you don't need to own any servers yourself to run ab or httperf on. You don't have to install or configure ab/httperf, and you get results nicely formatted as graphs with no extra work on your part and test configurations and results are always available to you, on the web. If you have the time, knowledge, interest and a server to spare, then ab or httperf (or I would recommend the Grinder - http://grinder.sourceforge.net/ http://grinder.sourceforge.net/ ) is definitely worth a try however.

jrockway 18y ago

Very nice. Are you guys using any off-the-shelf tools for the load testing, or is it all custom? (and if so, what language? Erlang?) Also, is there a way to simulate more than 5000 users?

rlonn 18y ago
It is mostly custom. The load generator is written in C and using libCURL - http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl 5,000 users is what one single instance of the non-threaded load generator can simulate today. We have some optimizations we can make that should improve this though, and we are also going to implement multi-source/multi-program load generation that means we can distribute the load generation for a single test over several processes and several load generator hosts. Using only our own infrastructure I think we can scale the system quite a lot, but obviously, if we want to run really large simulations with several hundred thousand, or millions, of simulated users, then we need to buy cloud server capacity.
- d13hard 18y ago
  how is your tool better than siege, which is in my opinion the best tool available

modoc 18y ago

I really like both the idea and the site. One feature request that would have me signup in an instant is if you could provide web service load testing as well. I'd also like to know more about the session recorder and if I can feed parameterized data into the scripts.

rlonn 18y ago
Thank you, and while I'm at it: thank you very much everybody for all the great feedback. It is very appreciated! The session recorder is pretty cool, we think. We have managed to make it zero-configuration (i.e. no user configuration necessary) while still being able to handle client-side javascript. There are other HTTP session recorders out there, but to be able to handle javascript they're usually implemented as a true HTTP proxy that you have to configure your browser to use, or they're a browser plugin that you have to download and install. The recorder outputs a load script that you can edit afterwards, if you want. However, the load script is currently more of a "list" of things to load, with pauses in between. It has no logic, conditional statements etc. and does not support parameterized data. This is something we intend to change soon though. It just needs some thought so we don't open up new possibilities for abuse/overuse of resources when we let users execute their own load script code on our systems.
kleevr 18y ago
I second web service load testing.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

jasonkester 18y ago

Nice effort! After a few weeks of mediocre "review my site" submissions here, it's nice to see something come through that I would actually use! You did a good job of making the reports and graphs pretty while still keeping a clean feel to the whole site. There seems to be a good amount of polish and attention to detail there too. I don't feel scared to click anything while the test is running for fear of breaking something or redirecting me to a FAQ page and canceling the test. I look forward to seeing how this pans out.

jasonkester 18y ago
Ooh. Spoke too soon. Registration after finishing a test is really really painful. - shelled off to the Pick a plan screen - pick the free plan - nothing happens, so click it a few more times - scroll down to see if I missed something and find WAAY too many required fields - click register - screen scrolls up to the top, but nothing else happens - click register again - "this email is already registered" - find login box, type in email an password - get the homepage and a "Account not confirmed" message - open my email client, find the mail, click the link - get a "confirmed" page, and I STILL need to go type my email and password in again. Guys, you're killing me. Such a good product, with such a terrible registration experience. It's completely unnecessary. Ask for a username and password, and let me get on with trying your thing. If I like it I'll engage with you further. That's Startup Usability 101. Fix it and maybe you've got a shot.
- rlonn 18y ago
  Uh oh, but this is the kind of feedback we really need, so thanks a lot. The registration procedure is perhaps the most important part of all to get streamlined. What happened was that the free plan was preselected when you entered the registration page. This means that nothing happened when you clicked it (as it was already selected). When you then clicked "register" you probably got a "Registration successful - an email has been sent to you for account confirmation" message at the top of the screen, can you have missed that? Then when you click again on "Register" you get the error message that you're already registered. Maybe we should think about transporting the user to another page when they choose a plan/a subscription. Have less things on one and the same page. Your experience suggests that that might be a good idea I think. User interfaces are not easy, and it is so hard to see things with objective eyes as a developer.

jey 18y ago

I tried to test my site (NSFW: http://fapseek.com http://fapseek.com) and got the message "This configuration contains addresses that has been tested too many times the last 24 hours." I assumed someone else had tested the site and that I would be able to test after logging in and verifying ownership of the domain. Even after creating an account, logging in, and creating the loadimpact.txt file, I'm still getting the same error message about my address having already been tested too many times.

rlonn 18y ago
That's our somewhat restrictive security features that notice some object being loaded as part of your webpage, an object that other sites also use. For example, many sites load urchin.js from google-analytics.com. This means that the daily load our system allows itself to subject google-analytics.com to will quickly be reached. Anyone trying to start a new test for a webpage that loads urchin.js will then be denied to run their test. We have a list of URLS/sites that are exempted from these checks, but this list needs to be populated. So far we only have a few entries on it (like google-analytics). It seems your site loads things from googleapis.com so I added an exception for that address now. Try again and see if it works. We probably need to work on the information to users whenever a test is denied also. If you know what the offending URL is, you can remove it from your load script and run the test without it.
- cedsav 18y ago
  yep, loading javascript libraries from CDN is more and more common. I'd suggest you add ajax.googleapis.com and yui.yahooapis.com (there's probably more) [Edit] you mentioned googleapis.com already.
- jey 18y ago
  Thanks, that fixed it. It would be clearer if you included the offending URLs in the error message.
- tdavis 18y ago
  Might want to add Cachefly, too? I think this might be what is stopping me from testing our site, but it doesn't specify so...

jusob 18y ago

How does it compare to http://litmusapp.com/ http://litmusapp.com/ ?

timf 18y ago
Another online service is http://www.soasta.com http://www.soasta.com which is $1k/hour (cloud-buzzword heavy but slick UI)
- rlonn 18y ago
  Litmus is more about functionality/compatibility testing, unless I'm mistaken, while our service is all about performance testing. Soasta does essentially the same thing as we do although they are a lot more expensive and aim for larger clients. Traditionally, load testing has been both difficult and expensive, which is why mostly larger organizations have been doing it. Soasta I think has therefore aimed for this segment while we're betting on a larger, but so far unproven, market among small- and medium sized companies.
  - timf 18y ago
    Best of luck to you, I think it's a good strategy. I'd be surprised to find any small business that would pay Soasta at those prices. $1k/hour is the kind of money where I would hire someone instead to build a in-house solution via EC2 etc.

raamdev 18y ago

Here's the test on Google.com: http://loadimpact.com/result/google.com-398c66a059f3ab3c096be74fd5d2dab1 http://loadimpact.com/result/google.com-398c66a059f3ab3c096b...

rlonn 18y ago
Strange, 50 simulated clients don't seem to stress Google much :-)

omarish 18y ago

Nice site, but how is this different from siege? http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2007/12/06/siege-an-httphttps-stress-tester/ http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2007/12/06/siege-an-httphttps-stre...

rlonn 18y ago
Siege is just another load testing software. The new thing here is that we offer load testing as an online service. No need to install, configure or maintain any special software or hardware. Test configurations and results are always accessible, on the web. If you're interested in running your own load testing software I would recommend the Grinder - http://grinder.sourceforge.net http://grinder.sourceforge.net - which is very nice and flexible. If you need to generate a lot of load, curl-loader might be of interest - http://curl-loader.sourceforge.net http://curl-loader.sourceforge.net

d13hard 18y ago

no, i'm sorry. the whole point of load testing is that i am (for example) looking at my vmstat output etc DURING the test...thats a whole lot easier if i just fire up siege or httperf or ab at my console. i'm sorry hackers, you need to know how to do this yourself. just hearing someone tell you your site is slow is useless unless you know WHY. knowing WHY means looking at your system in detail as well as your site design and achitecture. there is no "for dummies" route here. just giving me pretty graphs saying my site is slow is pointless. its so trivial to run siege...why would you pay someone to do this? is their load tool even as good as siege? how can they possibly match the pummeling i can deliver on the LAN. load testing is best done locally. i won't be downmodded by anyone who does load testing as part of their actual job

huhtenberg 18y ago

Welcome to my IP blacklist. But, seriously, this should be strictly an opt-in service. Only if there is a loadimpact.txt on the server, you run your tests. Otherwise - refuse and explain that the server admin has not consented to the stress testing using your service. I'm sure you have some DoS provisions in place, but in the end it really boils down to the fact that if you screw up, then it's my server that gets DoS'd.

volida 18y ago
this is true. Their servers shouldn't test if they don't find a specified file, like Google does with Webmaster tools.
- timf 18y ago
  Exactly, "claim your site"
- bprater 18y ago
  Yep, it only takes a second to do, too. Definitely consider this strategy.
a-priori 18y ago
This could be a line in a robots.txt: Allow-Stress-Testing: * The default would be to not allow stress testing of any resources.
copenja 18y ago
It already requires a file named loadimpact.txt on your server to test high loads. See here: http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7 http://loadimpact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7
- sh1mmer 18y ago
  That's not really good enough. It's unacceptable to let random members of the public use your services to "test" someone else's site. It's bad form let alone the breach of the ToS on 90% of sites.

lazyant 18y ago

I see a potential legal problem with the way the stress test is "authorized". The thing is that web server access (putting the "loadimpact.txt" file in the server) is not exactly the same as web site ownership. My paranoid mind can think of an scenario like this (INAL so I maybe be off): a web master asks for the load test, this is done and the site goes down for a while, incurring a monetary loss (loss in sales for example). The owner sues the testing company for a 'DoS' and the testing company has no way to prove that it was authorized (what text file, there's none!). I personally wouldn't do a stress test on a server without written authorization of the owner. The way I would implement this on an online service is by asking the target web site and the email address, where this address has to be in the public whois information. Then I'd send a special message to that email address and by replying the owner gives authorization (this way I'd have something from the official email address). This is not a 'written authorization' but comes as close as it can and the whois email address is used for domain transactions etc so it has the same level of protection/legal procedure behind.

simplegeek 18y ago

I'm interested in giving it a shot but site isn't opening. Is it just me?

asmosoinio 18y ago
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/loadimpact.com/ http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/loadimpact.com/

leftnode 18y ago

I'm interested in how many paid registrations posting here on HN resulted in. It seems like a pretty positive response here and a great tool! Great work!

rlonn 18y ago
Thank you. We have had a ton of visits and a good number of registrations, although only a handful of paid accounts as of yet. But that's OK, it's natural that people want to try before they buy. We hope they'll convert once they have tested the service a bit. If you ask me, however, I'd say that the feedback we are getting here is what's really invaluable. It will help us improve the service a lot.

asnyder 18y ago

This is a good start, though not as comprehensive as we're used to. Currently we use WAPT which is significantly more comprehensive while still maintaining the ease of use that most other comprehensive tools lack. That said, it would be great to incorporate some of their features such as different scenarios, load patterns, particular series of pages, random, etc. It would be great to not have to have a dedicated resource to run the stress tests, it's also tricky to know if the local bandwidth can properly emulate x number of machines.

sh1mmer 18y ago

You are testing from Europe somewhere by the look of it. Many people have scattered servers now. It would be good to be able to test from non-European locations.

rlonn 18y ago
We have two load generator nodes right now. One in Stockholm, Sweden and one in Chicago, US. The default node is the Stockholm one, however, and only paying users are allowed to choose what load generator they use. If people want more locations we'll be happy to set up more nodes in the future.

paraschopra 18y ago

I get this message on my personal domain: "This configuration contains addresses that has been tested too many times the last 24 hours" Does this mean somebody is DOSsing my site through your service?

rlonn 18y ago
No, it is most likely because your site is loading some object - like urchin.js from google-analytics.com - that a lot of other tests have been loading also. That means that our security checks will think someone is trying to DOS google-analytics.com and so stop your test. We have a list of exclusions that the system should not bother checking (such as google-analytics.com) but the list is not complete so people run into this problem frequently right now. I am going to fix so that we inform people what the offending URL/object is (rather than just saying "one of the systems involved in the test..."), so they can remove it from their load scripts (if you're a registered user you can edit your load scripts before starting a load test) and also contact us and ask us to put new systems into our exclusion list.

vladimir 18y ago

Of course you should permit to run such tests only if you are sure you are dealing with site owners or their representatives. You can use the system that is used in Google webmasters tools - users can confirm their ownership by adding specific document or meta-tag. Also - registration system's usability is not perfect. But the idea is great - I would use this service.

rlonn 18y ago
Yeah, this is something we have thought about also. We already have this security feature that uses a special file (loadimpact.txt) on the target system(s) to verify that it's OK to run large-scale tests. We should probably improve on that and allow people to bypass the other checks if they have this file. It is the safest way we have to verify that a test is legal, so we should give it more priority before other checks.

brandinfection 18y ago

Cool service! I tried it out and might get an account for testing with more users.

rubentopo 18y ago

Works well, i did like it, however i have two comments: -Please be able to get http://www.mywebsite.com http://www.mywebsite.com , www.mywebsite.com , mywebsite.com , http://mywebsite.com http://mywebsite.com and lastly the good case http://www.mywebsite.com http://www.mywebsite.com -I believe that you'd have much more success if you charged on a test basis, your monthly billing might scare people away.

luminousbit 18y ago

I love the site, HATE the pricing. I'd really like to pay for the service, but what I REALLY need is: 1) Run several low user tests (200-300) to tweak server settings, app code, etc. 2) Then run one or two big tests (1000+) just once to see the results. I MIGHT need this at most once a month. That just isn't worth $200 per month. I'd much prefer a subscription for the lower levels of consistent use, and then be able to purchase an additional once-off very large test for maybe $10-20 each.