gatlingwrk

Wrk vs Gatling benchmark test comparison

With wrk, I runt the following command :

wrk -t10 -c10 -d30s http://localhost:8080/myService --latency -H "Accept-Encoding: gzip"

As a result, I obtain Requests/sec: 15000 and no error

I am trying to reproduce the same kind of test with Gatling. So I have tried the following :

scn.inject(
      rampUsersPerSec(1) to 15000 during (30 seconds)
    )

But as a result, I obtain errors :

---- Errors --------------------------------------------------------------------

i.n.c.AbstractChannel$AnnotatedSocketException: Can't assign r 573 (42,44%) equested address: localhost/127.0.0.1:8080 i.n.c.AbstractChannel$AnnotatedSocketException: Resource tempo 530 (39,26%) rarily unavailable: localhost/0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1:8080 j.i.IOException: Premature close 247 (18,30%)

From wrk, I believe my server can handle 15000 request/s but with Gatling it seems not the case. Do you have an idea why such a difference ?

Solution

  • Disclaimer: Gatling's creator here

    You're comparing apples and oranges.

    With wrk, you're opening 10 connections and looping as fast as possible during 30s.

    With your current Gatling set up, you're spawning 225,015 virtual users ((1 + 15,000) / 2 * 30), each one trying to open its own connection.

    I recommend you reading this article about picking injection profiles that make sense for your use case.

    If you really want to do the same thing as wrk here, you need to wrap your scenario in a during(30) loop and change your injection profile to atOnceUsers(10).

    You also have the option of using a shared connection pool.

    Then, you can't expect any other to load test tool to be as fast as wrk for this kind of logicless, static test.

    Also note that: