User (Legacy) Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 I have a simple web form that displays a chart that is being streamed (GetHtmlData). I am running a simple load test on ACT with a single browser connection that calls this page for 5 min. This gives me about 23 hits/ps. (100% success) I run another test with 2 simultaneous browser connections on the same page. This gives me only a 93% success rate ie: about 7% failed with a response code 500. We are currently evaluating chartfx and so far we have been pretty impressed but the above test results are pretty scary. I have been running these tests on my local machine which is a 1.8 pentium with 500mb of RAM. Can someone explain why this is happening? Has anyone performed any tests like these and what were your results? Hope someone can share some light on how this can be solved. Thanks in advance Sumesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Software FX Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Can you check the file version for ChartFX.Internet.dll and ChartFX.Borders.dll We fixed an issue related with borders and multithreading that could account for the 7% failure. -- Regards, JC Software FX Support "Sumesh" <sumesh.nair@flytxt.com> wrote in message news:v$YW$jCMDHA.1284@webserver1.softwarefx.com... > I have a simple web form that displays a chart that is being streamed > (GetHtmlData). > I am running a simple load test on ACT with a single browser connection that > calls this page for 5 min. This gives me about 23 hits/ps. (100% success) > > I run another test with 2 simultaneous browser connections on the same page. > This gives me only a 93% success rate ie: about 7% failed with a response > code 500. > > We are currently evaluating chartfx and so far we have been pretty impressed > but the above test results are pretty scary. > > I have been running these tests on my local machine which is a 1.8 pentium > with 500mb of RAM. > > Can someone explain why this is happening? Has anyone performed any tests > like these and what were your results? Hope someone can share some light on > how this can be solved. > > Thanks in advance > Sumesh > > > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User (Legacy) Posted June 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Yes I did have an old version of dll's. I downloaded the service pack and that's fixed the issue. As a thought: You should probably bundle your service packs with your evaluation downloads, otherwise I expect most people to have similar problems and end up being dissappointed with the product. Thanks Sumesh "SoftwareFX Support" <support@softwarefx.com> wrote in message news:wyLu5zDMDHA.2448@webserver1.softwarefx.com... > Can you check the file version for ChartFX.Internet.dll and > ChartFX.Borders.dll > > We fixed an issue related with borders and multithreading that could account > for the 7% failure. > > -- > Regards, > > JC > Software FX Support > "Sumesh" <sumesh.nair@flytxt.com> wrote in message > news:v$YW$jCMDHA.1284@webserver1.softwarefx.com... > > I have a simple web form that displays a chart that is being streamed > > (GetHtmlData). > > I am running a simple load test on ACT with a single browser connection > that > > calls this page for 5 min. This gives me about 23 hits/ps. (100% success) > > > > I run another test with 2 simultaneous browser connections on the same > page. > > This gives me only a 93% success rate ie: about 7% failed with a response > > code 500. > > > > We are currently evaluating chartfx and so far we have been pretty > impressed > > but the above test results are pretty scary. > > > > I have been running these tests on my local machine which is a 1.8 pentium > > with 500mb of RAM. > > > > Can someone explain why this is happening? Has anyone performed any tests > > like these and what were your results? Hope someone can share some light > on > > how this can be solved. > > > > Thanks in advance > > Sumesh > > > > > > > > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.