Can anyone help

155 views
Skip to first unread message

vijay subramanian

unread,
Dec 24, 2010, 1:11:48 AM12/24/10
to LR-Loa...@googlegroups.com
Hi All,
   After i correlate, my script for a single vuser its working fine in VUGEN. But While doing stress testing for 100 vusers all the vusers get failed and receiving the following error.

Action.c(226): Error -27979: Requested form not found
Action.c(41): Error -27728: Step download timeout (120 seconds) has expired when downloading non-resource(s)
Action.c(41): Error -26374: The above "not found" error(s) may be explained by header and body byte counts being 415 and 0, respectively.
Action.c(41): Error -26374: The above "not found" error(s) may be explained by header and body byte counts being 344 and 0, respectively.
--
With Regards
S.vijay
Ph: 9894802636

chaitanya bhatt

unread,
Dec 24, 2010, 11:01:48 PM12/24/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
Now it's time for you to investigate the server/network bottleneck and stop worrying about your LR script.

-Chaitanya M Bhatt
http://www.performancecompetence.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google "LoadRunner" group.
To post to this group, send email to LR-Loa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
LR-LoadRunne...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/LR-LoadRunner?hl=en

Lordb_

unread,
Dec 25, 2010, 12:18:06 AM12/25/10
to LoadRunner
dear chaitanya,
in such kinf of situation where should we start ??

Saifulla Khalid

unread,
Dec 25, 2010, 1:55:08 AM12/25/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
Try increasing the step download time to 1000 and disable "Download Non html content"

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Lordb_ <gkmishr...@gmail.com> wrote:
dear chaitanya,
in such kinf of situation where should we start ??

chaitanya bhatt

unread,
Dec 25, 2010, 3:09:01 AM12/25/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
Have you monitored the resource utilization of the target AUT servers? Have monitored the network utilization/delay?

If you haven't done it yet, then repeat the same test and consider monitoring the aforementioned items. If you have recorded the script in URL mode, then increasing the stepdown timeout IMHO WILL NOT help you identify the problem, rather it may allow problematic transactions to pass and this may even delude inexperienced stakeholders into thinking it as a positive result which is not the agenda of performance testing. Stepdown timeout failure for 200 seconds is not a good sign unless your transaction is innately slow( like Cognos reports, Business Objects reports etc.) and such exceptions should be stipulated in the performance SLA.

Regarding browser emulationg settings: Do not disable "Download Non-Html resources" option. Every resource which is responsible to complete the end user DOM experience is critical, be it even if it is as trival as a GIF image. And this is one of the reason why I believe that, for successfully isolating a problematic transaction, there is no better option than using URL mode scripts in LR.

And, regarding monitoring, live Monitoring has lots of benefits when compared against post-mortem analysis. Monitoring can help you visualize patterns of the server/network health and can also help you interpret and uncover various hidden walls on the fly which may be difficult to analyze if you're following the later approach.

Floris Kraak

unread,
Dec 25, 2010, 11:11:51 AM12/25/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Saifulla Khalid
<khalidsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try increasing the step download time to 1000 and disable "Download Non html
> content"

For the love of god:

NO.

If you see anything take more than 10 seconds to reply, let alone 120
seconds - your problem is not settings, nor is it your script.

Increasing the download timeout because you get errors in a loadtest
is not going to make things better. 120 seconds as a responsetime is
(almost) never acceptable.


Therefore: congratulations, you broke the system under test.
Now that you have found that that system cannot handle the load you
are putting on it you should start asking the hard questions, and stop
fiddling with scripts or settings until you have answers.

Ask yourself:
Is the load at which this error occurs within the range of load the
system under test expects?
If not: Why?


Regards,
Floris
---
'Many people asked me if I was afraid to fly and implied that I should
have stayed home, close to family and friends. I replied that if I had
stayed home, the terrorists would have won.

Unfortunately, my government does not agree with my definition of
winning. They think that living in fear and trying desperately to keep
us all 100% safe while flying is the most effective way to fight
terrorism. It reminds me of a boss that told me he liked it when
people lived in fear of being fired, they worked harder. I told him
being fired held no fear for me. When you live in fear, you do
irrational things - like sending millions of people's shoes through an
xray scanner every day.'
   -- Stormy Peters

anupam chaubey

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 2:39:15 AM12/29/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
hi
As I can see ur error log that "Requested form not found"  I think in script you are using   web_submit_form . so change it with web_submit_data and run the script.


Thanks
Anupam.....



On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:41 AM, vijay subramanian <vijaysubra...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Alter Fernandes

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 5:25:13 AM12/29/10
to LoadRunner
NOW the Permanent solution for "Action.c(41): Error -27728: Step
download timeout (120 seconds) has expired
when downloading non-resource(s) " is

Go to Controller-->Run Time Settings-->Click Preference-->Select
Option -->Change 'Step Download time=999' from 120


On Dec 24, 11:11 am, vijay subramanian

James Pulley

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 11:25:38 AM12/29/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
Bad suggestion. Do you really think that 120 seconds will be within any
user's acceptable response time window? How will you have the users change
the timeout on their browsers to be beyond the 120 second standard for HTTP
timeout?

Find out why it is slow. Do not change the standard for 'slow.'

James Pulley, http://www.loadrunnerbythehour.com/PricingMatrix

--

Floris Kraak

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 6:05:25 PM12/29/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM, James Pulley
<loadrunn...@jamespulley.com> wrote:
> Bad suggestion.   Do you really think that 120 seconds will be within any
> user's acceptable response time window?   How will you have the users change
> the timeout on their browsers to be beyond the 120 second standard for HTTP
> timeout?
>
> Find out why it is slow.   Do not change the standard for 'slow.'
>

I am very surprised. Why:

1) Do so many people seem to find that an acceptable answer?
2) Do those same people persist in suggesting that answer even when it
has both already been suggested before AND burnt to a crisp by someone
else?
(namely: me)

Especially question number one is a real brainbreaker. It speaks
volumes about the person writing that. Obviously whoever is writing
that considers themselves to be an educated person, yet their whole
attitude seems to be one of denying problems by covering them up by
enlarging silly settings.

Or is it just an attitude of "Errors are bad, must fix?".
I don't get it.

John Crunk

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 6:16:42 PM12/29/10
to lr-loa...@googlegroups.com
Actually that does have a purpose, it tells you if it is the application or the site that is slow. I always change this setting to give the application a chance to be slow. Then I count how often it happens

Sent from my iPhone

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages