Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Automatically fork into multiple processes when running in --slave mode #12

Closed
heyman opened this issue Jan 6, 2012 · 5 comments
Closed

Automatically fork into multiple processes when running in --slave mode #12

heyman opened this issue Jan 6, 2012 · 5 comments

Comments

@heyman
Copy link
Member

heyman commented Jan 6, 2012

I've implemented this in the "forking" branch. Seems to work fine under UNIX, but needs to be tested on Windows.
@Jahaja
Copy link
Member

Jahaja commented Jan 10, 2012

Using the multiprocessing module rather than os.fork would probably enable this on windows as well.

However i remember that using the parallel task execution functionality offered by fabric is quite dodgy on Windows even though they use the multiprocessing module. But it should be quite easy to give it a test.

@heyman heyman closed this as completed May 9, 2014
@tom-dalton-fanduel
Copy link

Did this ever go anywhere? Have run into an issue where my slaves are CPU bound and wondering if it's possible to get locust to fork itself rather then getting my orchestration stuff to run multiple slaves on each host...

cpennington added a commit to cpennington/locust that referenced this issue Aug 31, 2015
@cpennington
Merge pull request locustio#12 from edx/jeskew/ci_robustness_fixes
9d62326 
Confidence interval robustness fixes.
@mtrienis
Copy link

mtrienis commented Jul 4, 2016

+1

@kerrickstaley
Copy link

Was this implemented, or is this a WONTFIX?

@heyman
Copy link
Member Author

heyman commented Aug 18, 2017

Even though I implemented a proof of concept, I would say that it's a WONTFIX, in the spirit of keeping the codebase simple. I believe the costs of maintaining that feature would be too high compared to the gains.

@ovanes ovanes mentioned this issue Jun 1, 2018
Closed
tyge68 added a commit to tyge68/locust that referenced this issue Sep 15, 2021
@tyge68
# This is a combination of 12 commits.
46337f4 
# This is the 1st commit message:

locustio#1884 User distribution should happen when new workers comes in

# This is the commit message locustio#2:

locustio#1884 reformatting

# This is the commit message locustio#3:

locustio#1884 Make rebalance interval configurable

# This is the commit message locustio#4:

locustio#1884 Adding integration test for rebalanced

# This is the commit message locustio#5:

locustio#1884 revert change

# This is the commit message locustio#6:

locustio#1886 Simplify solution

# This is the commit message locustio#7:

locustio#1886 adding missing dependency

# This is the commit message locustio#8:

locustio#1884 Adding back enable rebalancing option

# This is the commit message locustio#9:

locustio#1884 adding extra comment the test

# This is the commit message locustio#10:

locustio#1884 renaming as suggested

# This is the commit message locustio#11:

locustio#1884 update help description

# This is the commit message locustio#12:

locustio#1884 handling of missing workers to rebalance
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@heyman @Jahaja @kerrickstaley @mtrienis @tom-dalton-fanduel