4 ms·
I've compared using Locust to Gatling and the only downside is that Locust wasn't able to reach the same RPS I was getting with Gatling. It's a shame because Lo
by jterfi 12y ago
I've compared using Locust to Gatling and the only downside is that Locust wasn't able to reach the same RPS I was getting with Gatling. It's a shame because Locust is much nicer to work with in comparison.
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago> I've compared using Locust to Gatling and the only downside is that Locust wasn't able to reach the same RPS I was getting with Gatling. It's a shame because Locust is much nicer to work with in comparison. That's hardly an issue as you can trivially build multi machine swarms with Locust.
- jterfi 12y agoWhen I could barely get 200 RPS from a locust instance, but 10,000 RPS from a Gatling instance, this is a huge issue if you don't have an unlimited budget.
- jonatanheyman 12y agoThat sounds strange. Unless you're doing a lot of performance expensive stuff in your test scripts, you should easily be able to reach a higher RPS. Also, are you comparing a single Locust process to Gatling? Since Gatling runs on the JVM, it would be more fair to compare it to a Locust cluster with one locust process per processor core.
- gibsonje 12y agoThis seems wrong. Make sure you're following the guides in their documentation (run one locust slave instance per core). But that aside, 200 RPS is way too low for a locust instance. I use locust for loads 100k+ rps, if 200rps per host were my limit I wouldn't be using locust.