Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

When 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.

That 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.

This 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com