4 ms·
AB is not a particularly smart tool (though it's very handy), but I've never seen it reject as not-accurate any non-baseline sized requests... In fact, I can't
by CoffeeDregs 14y ago
AB is not a particularly smart tool (though it's very handy), but I've never seen it reject as not-accurate any non-baseline sized requests... In fact, I can't imagine the rationale that would lead a benchmarking tool to do so. [Obviously, a testing tool might do so...]
- bbatsell 14y agoI've seen it frequently, and yes, this is how it behaves, e.g.: [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/579466/94830 http://stackoverflow.com/a/579466/94830 [2]: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42040 https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42040 I imagine the rationale was something along the lines of many servers/apps are written to incorrectly return 200 with a descriptive error page rather than 500 or whatever the appropriate status code would be. And at the time ab was first written, pages were a lot more static than they are now, so a different page would be more likely to indicate an incorrect response.
- stock_toaster 14y agouse wrk[1] or weighttp[2] instead. [1]: https://github.com/wg/wrk https://github.com/wg/wrk [2]: redmine.lighttpd.net/projects/weighttp/wiki