Search Results

Search found 35507 results on 1421 pages for 'performance test'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 10/1421 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Ubuntu with KDE and kernel 3.6.2 - performance issues

    - by Pelda
    I have recently swiched to Ubuntu and installed KDe on it. I like software included in Ubuntu but interface from Kubuntu. My problem is, that after installation of kernel 3.6.2 (deafult ubuntu 12.04 is 3.2 I think) - whole KDE interface is laggy and I have to render using Xrended because Opel AL doesnt work. So please tell me - I didint find it anywhere - Does KDE has some problems with new kernel? should i downgrade back to 3.x.x? Thank you for answers and your time. Pelda

    Read the article

  • DDD Model Design and Repository Persistence Performance Considerations

    - by agarhy
    So I have been reading about DDD for some time and trying to figure out the best approach on several issues. I tend to agree that I should design my model in a persistent agnostic manner. And that repositories should load and persist my models in valid states. But are these approaches realistic practically? I mean its normal for a model to hold a reference to a collection of another type. Persisting that model should mean persist the entire collection. Fine. But do I really need to load the entire collection every time I load the model? Probably not. So I can have specialized repositories. Some that load maybe a subset of the object graph via DTOs and others that load the entire object graph. But when do I use which? If I have DTOs, what's stopping client code from directly calling them and completely bypassing the model? I can have mappers and factories to create my models from DTOs maybe? But depending on the design of my models that might not always work. Or it might not allow my models to be created in a valid state. What's the correct approach here?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing hash lookup & memory performance in Go

    - by Moishe
    As an exercise, I'm implementing HashLife in Go. In brief, HashLife works by memoizing nodes in a quadtree so that once a given node's value in the future has been calculated, it can just be looked up instead of being re-calculated. So eg. if you have a node at the 8x8 level, you remember it by its four children (each at the 2x2 level). So next time you see an 8x8 node, when you calculate the next generation, you first check if you've already seen a node with those same four children. This is extended up through all levels of the quadtree, which gives you some pretty amazing optimizations if eg. you're 10 levels above the leaves. Unsurprisingly, it looks like the perfmance crux of this is the lookup of nodes by child-node values. Currently I have a hashmap of {&upper_left_node,&upper_right_node,&lower_left_node,&lower_right_node} -> node So my lookup function is this: func FindNode(ul, ur, ll, lr *Node) *Node { var node *Node var ok bool nc := NodeChildren{ul, ur, ll, lr} node, ok = NodeMap[nc] if ok { return node } node = &Node{ul, ur, ll, lr, 0, ul.Level + 1, nil} NodeMap[nc] = node return node } What I'm trying to figure out is if the "nc := NodeChildren..." line causes a memory allocation each time the function is called. If it does, can I/should I move the declaration to the global scope and just modify the values each time this function is called? Or is there a more efficient way to do this? Any advice/feedback would be welcome. (even coding style nits; this is literally the first thing I've written in Go so I'd love any feedback)

    Read the article

  • Performance cost of running Ubuntu from external hard drive

    - by dandan78
    A friend just complained to me about Ubuntu being slow. Although I've noticed a certain lack of snappiness with Linux vs Windows in the past, I really can't say I've had much to grumble about with the recent distributions of Ubuntu. That said, his objections seem much worse than the ones I used to have and I know that his current setup is significantly more powerful than my laptop. And then it turned out he is running Ubuntu off an external HDD hooked up via USB2.0. The HD enclosure is USB3.0 but apparently he can't manage to get it to boot on USB3.0 so he switched to one of the USB2.0 ports or whatever and that works, albeit not very well. Now I would expect USB to add some overhead to communication between the computer and the HDD; SATA is after all designed to get the maximum out of a hard drive, whereas USB is, well, universal. What are your expreriences with booting off external HDDs? Edit: Does anybody know just how much of a slowdown can be expected?

    Read the article

  • AWR Performance Report and Read by Other Session Waits

    - by user702295
    For the questions regarding "read by other session" and its relation to "db file sequential/scattered read", the logic is like this: When a "db file sequential/scattered read" is done, the blocks are either already in the cache or on the disk.  Since any operation on blocks is done in the cache and since and the issue is "read by other session" I will relate to the case the blocks are on the disk. Process A is reading the needed block from the disk to the cache.  During that time, if process B (and C and others) need the same block, it will wait on "read by other session".  A and B can be threads of the same process running in parallel or unrelated processes.  For example two processes doing full table scan on mdp_matrix etc. Solutions for that can be lowering the number of processes competing on the same blocks, increasing PCTFREE.  If it is a full table scan, maybe an index is missing that can result in less blocks being read from the cache and so on.

    Read the article

  • Pain of the Week/Expert's Perspective: Performance Tuning for Backups and Restores

    - by KKline
    First off - the Pain of the Week webcast series has been renamed. It's now known as The Expert's Perspective . Please join us for future webcasts and, if you're interested in speaking, drop me a note to see if we can get you on the roster! The bigger your databases get, the longer backups take. That doesn't really seem like a huge problem — until disaster strikes and you need to restore your databases as fast as possible. Join my buddy Brent Ozar ( blog | twitter ), a Microsoft Certified Master of...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Intel programming "performance" books? [closed]

    - by user997112
    I vaguely remember seeing that Intel have produced a few good books, especially with regards to low latency programming, but I cannot remember the titles. Could people suggest the titles of Intel books (or ones relating to Intel products)? Examples include books on: -Intel Compiler -Intel Assembler -Any low level programming on Intel assembler -The Intel CPU architecture -Intel threading blocks library

    Read the article

  • Displaying performance data per engine subsystem

    - by liortal
    Our game (Android based) traces how long it takes to do the world logic updates, and how long it takes to a render a frame to the device screen. These traces are collected every frame, and displayed at a constant interval (currently every 1 second). I've seen games where on-screen data of various engine subsystems is displayed, with the time they consume (either in text) or as horizontal colored bars. I am wondering how to implement such a feature?

    Read the article

  • Writing Acceptance test cases

    - by HH_
    We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Practical RAID Performance?

    - by wag2639
    I've always thought the following to be a general rule of thumb for RAID: RAID 0: Best performance for READ and WRITE from stripping, greatest risk RAID 1: Redundant, decent for READ (I believe it can read from different parts of a file from different hard drives), not the best for WRITE RAID 0+1 (01): combines redundancy of RAID 1 with performance of RAID 0 RAID 1+0 (10): slightly better version of RAID 0+1 RAID 5: good READ performance, bad WRITE performance, redundant IS THIS ASSUMPTION CORRECT? (and how do they compare to a JBOD setup for R/W IO performance) Are certain practical RAID setups better for different applications: gaming, video editing, database (Acccess or SQL)? I was thinking about hard disk drives but does this apply to solid state drives as well?

    Read the article

  • OpenVZ vs Xen, how much difference in performance?

    - by Aleksandr Levchuk
    There is a Xen vs. KVM in performance question on ServerFault. What will be the performance difference if the choice is between Xen and OpenVZ? How is it best to measure? Some may say "you're comparing apples and oranges" but I have to choose one of the two and it needs to be wise choice. Performance is most important to us. We may switching to Xen from OpenVZ because Xen is more ubiquitous but only if performance difference is not significant. In January 2011 I'm thinking of doing a head to head performance comparison - here is my project proposal to our Bioinformatics facility director.

    Read the article

  • XSD: how to use 'unique' & 'key'/'keyref' with element values?

    - by Koohoolinn
    I trying to use and / with element values but I just can't get it to work. If I do it with attrubute values it works like a charm. Test.xml <test:config xmlns:test="http://www.example.org/Test" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.example.org/Test Test.xsd "> <test:location id="id1" path="/path2"> <test:roles> <test:role>role1</test:role> <test:role>role2</test:role> <test:role>role2</test:role> <!-- DUPLICATE: FAIL VALIDATION --> </test:roles> <test:action name="action1"> <test:roles> <test:role>role1</test:role> <test:role>role1</test:role> <!-- DUPLICATE: FAIL VALIDATION --> <test:role>role3</test:role> <!-- NOT DEFINED: FAIL VALIDATION --> </test:roles> </test:action> </test:location> </test:config> I want ensure that roles are only defined once and that the roles defined under the action element are only those defined at the upper level. Test.xsd <xs:element name="config"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="test:location" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="location" type="test:LocationType"> <xs:key name="keyRole"> <xs:selector xpath="test:roles" /> <xs:field xpath="test:role" /> </xs:key> <xs:keyref name="keyrefRole" refer="test:keyRole"> <xs:selector xpath="test:action/test:roles" /> <xs:field xpath="test:role" /> </xs:keyref> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="LocationType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="test:roles" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element name="action" type="test:ActionType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:string" use="required"/> <xs:attribute name="path" type="xs:string" use="required"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="roles" type="test:RolesType"> <xs:unique name="uniqueRole"> <xs:selector xpath="." /> <xs:field xpath="test:role" /> </xs:unique> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="RolesType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="role" type="xs:string" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="ActionType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="test:roles" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" /> </xs:complexType> The validation fails with these messages: Description Resource Path Location Type cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyrefRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 15 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyrefRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 16 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 15 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 16 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.1: Duplicate unique value [role1] declared for identity constraint "uniqueRole" of element "roles". Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.1: Duplicate unique value [role1] declared for identity constraint "uniqueRole" of element "roles". Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 15 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.2.2: Duplicate key value [role1] declared for identity constraint "keyRole" of element "location". Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.3: Key 'keyrefRole' with value 'role3' not found for identity constraint of element 'location'. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 19 XML Problem If I comment out the lines that should fail, validation still fails now with these messages: Description Resource Path Location Type cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Transcript of Learning SQL Server Performance: Indexing Basics – Interview of Vinod Kumar by Pinal Dave

    - by pinaldave
    Recently I just wrote a blog post on about Learning SQL Server Performance: Indexing Basics and I received lots of request that if we can share some insight into the course. Here is 200 seconds interview of Vinod Kumar I took right after completing the course. We have few free codes to watch the course, please your comment at http://facebook.com/SQLAuth and we will few of first ones, we will send the code. There are many people who said they would like to read the transcript of the video. Here I have generated the same. Pinal: Vinod, we recently released this course, SQL Server Indexing. It is about performance tuning. So tell me – how do indexes help performance? Vinod: I think what happens in the industry when it comes to performance is that developers and DBAs look at indexes first.  So that’s the first step for any performance tuning exercise, indexing is one of the most critical aspects and it is important to learn it the right way. Pinal: Correct. So what you mean to say is that if you know indexing you can pretty much tune any server and query. Vinod: So I might contradict my false statement now. Indexing is usually a stepping stone but it does not lead you to the end. But it’s good to start with indexing and there are lots of nuances to indexing that you need to understand, like how SQL uses indexing and how performance can improve because of the strategies that you have made. Pinal: But now I’m confused. First you said indexes are good, and then you said that indexes can degrade your performance.  So what is this course about?  I mean how does this course really make an impact? Vinod: Ok -so from the course perspective, what we are trying to do is give you a capsule which gives you a good start. Every journey needs a beginning, you need that first step.  This course is that first step in understanding. This is the most basic, fundamental course that we have tried to attack. This is the fundamentals of indexing, some of the key things that you must know about indexing.   Some of the basics of indexing are lesser known and so I think this course is geared towards each and every one of you out there who wants to understand little bit more about indexing. Pinal: So what I understand is that if I enrolled in this course I will have a minimum understanding about indexing when dealing with performance tuning.  Right? Vinod: Exactly. In this course is we have tried to give you a nice summary. We are talking about clustered indexing, non clustered indexing, too many indexes, too few indexes, over indexing, under indexing, duplicate indexing, columns tune indexing, with SQL Server 2012. There’s lot’s to learn. Pinal: You can see the URL [http://bit.ly/sql-index] of the course on the screen. Go ahead, attend, and let us know what you think about it. Thank you. Vinod: Thank you. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Index, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology, Video

    Read the article

  • “It’s only test code…”

    - by Chris George
    “Let me hack this in, it’s only test code”, “Don’t worry about getting it reviewed, it’s only test code”, “It doesn’t have to be elegant or efficient, it’s only test code”… do these phrases sound familiar? Chances are if you’ve working with test automation, at one point or other you will have heard these phrases, you have probably even used them yourself! What is certain is that code written under this “it’s only test code” mantra will come back and bite you in the arse! I’ve recently encountered a case where a test was giving a false positive, therefore hiding a real product bug because that test code was very badly written. Firstly it was very difficult to understand what the test was actually trying to achieve let alone how it was doing it, and this complexity masked a simple logic error. These issues are real and they do happen. Let’s take a step back from this and look at what we are trying to do. We are writing test code that tests product code, and we do this to create a suite of tests that will help protect our software against regressions. This test code is making sure that the product behaves as it should by employing some sort of expected result verification. The simple cases of these are generally not a problem. However, automation allows us to explore more complex scenarios in many more permutations. As this complexity increases then so does the complexity of the test code. It is at this point that code which has not been architected properly will cause problems.   Keep your friends close… So, how do we make sure we are doing it right? The development teams I have worked on have always had Test Engineers working very closely with their Software Engineers. This is something that I have always tried to take full advantage of. They are coding experts! So run your ideas past them, ask for advice on how to structure your code, help you design your data structures. This may require a shift in your teams viewpoint, as contrary to this section title and folklore, Software Engineers are not actually the mortal enemy of Test Engineers. As time progresses, and test automation becomes more and more ingrained in what we do, the two roles are converging more than ever. Over the 16 years I have spent as a Test Engineer, I have seen the grey area between the two roles grow significantly larger. This serves to strengthen the relationship and common bond between the two roles which helps to make test code activities so much easier!   Pair for the win Possibly the best thing you could do to write good test code is to pair program on the task. This will serve a few purposes. you will get the benefit of the Software Engineers knowledge and experience the Software Engineer will gain knowledge on the testing process. Sharing the love is a wonderful thing! two pairs of eyes are always better than one… And so are two brains. Between the two of you, I will guarantee you will derive more useful test cases than if it was just one of you.   Code reviews Another policy which certainly pays dividends is the practice of code reviews. By having one of your peers review your code before you commit it serves two purposes. Firstly, it forces you to explain your code. Just the act of doing this will often pick up errors in your code. Secondly, it gets yet another pair of eyes on your code! I cannot stress enough how important code reviews are. The benefits they offer apply as much to product code as test code. In short, Software and Test Engineers should all be doing them! It can be extended even further by getting test code reviewed by a Software Engineer and a Test Engineer, and likewise product code. This serves to keep both functions in the loop with changes going on within your code base.   Learn from your devs I briefly touched on this earlier but I’d like to go into more detail here. Pairing with your Software Engineers when writing your test code is such an amazing opportunity to improve your coding skills. As I sit here writing this article waiting to be called into court for jury service, it reminds me that it takes a lot of patience to be a Test Engineer, almost as much as it takes to be a juror! However tempting it is to go rushing in and start writing your automated tests, resist that urge. Discuss what you want to achieve then talk through the approach you’re going to take. Then code it up together. I find it really enlightening to ask questions like ‘is there a better way to do this?’ Or ‘is this how you would code it?’ The latter question, especially, is where I learn the most. I’ve found that most Software Engineers will be reluctant to show you the ‘right way’ to code something when writing tests because they perceive the ‘right way’ to be too complicated for the Test Engineer (e.g. not mentioning LINQ and instead doing something verbose). So by asking how THEY would code it, it unleashes their true dev-ness and advanced code usually ensues! I would like to point out, however, that you don’t have to accept their method as the final answer. On numerous occasions I have opted for the more simple/verbose solution because I found the code written by the Software Engineer too advanced and therefore I would find it unreadable when I return to the code in a months’ time! Always keep the target audience in mind when writing clever code, and in my case that is mostly Test Engineers.  

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database Performance on SPARC T4-2

    - by Brian
    The Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database is optimized to run on Oracle's SPARC T4 processor platforms running Oracle Solaris 11 providing unsurpassed scalability, performance, upgradability, protection of investment and return on investment. The following demonstrate the value of combining Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database with SPARC T4 servers and Oracle Solaris 11: On a Mobile Call Processing test, the 2-socket SPARC T4-2 server outperforms: Oracle's SPARC Enterprise M4000 server (4 x 2.66 GHz SPARC64 VII+) by 34%. Oracle's SPARC T3-4 (4 x 1.65 GHz SPARC T3) by 2.7x, or 5.4x per processor. Utilizing the TimesTen Performance Throughput Benchmark (TPTBM), the SPARC T4-2 server protects investments with: 2.1x the overall performance of a 4-socket SPARC Enterprise M4000 server in read-only mode and 1.5x the performance in update-only testing. This is 4.2x more performance per processor than the SPARC64 VII+ 2.66 GHz based system. 10x more performance per processor than the SPARC T2+ 1.4 GHz server. 1.6x better performance per processor than the SPARC T3 1.65 GHz based server. In replication testing, the two socket SPARC T4-2 server is over 3x faster than the performance of a four socket SPARC Enterprise T5440 server in both asynchronous replication environment and the highly available 2-Safe replication. This testing emphasizes parallel replication between systems. Performance Landscape Mobile Call Processing Test Performance System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Tps SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 218,400 M4000 SPARC64 VII+, 2.66 GHz 4 16 32 162,900 SPARC T3-4 SPARC T3, 1.65 GHz 4 64 512 80,400 TimesTen Performance Throughput Benchmark (TPTBM) Read-Only System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Tps SPARC T3-4 SPARC T3, 1.65 GHz 4 64 512 7.9M SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 6.5M M4000 SPARC64 VII+, 2.66 GHz 4 16 32 3.1M T5440 SPARC T2+, 1.4 GHz 4 32 256 3.1M TimesTen Performance Throughput Benchmark (TPTBM) Update-Only System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Tps SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 547,800 M4000 SPARC64 VII+, 2.66 GHz 4 16 32 363,800 SPARC T3-4 SPARC T3, 1.65 GHz 4 64 512 240,500 TimesTen Replication Tests System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Asynchronous 2-Safe SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 38,024 13,701 SPARC T5440 SPARC T2+, 1.4 GHz 4 32 256 11,621 4,615 Configuration Summary Hardware Configurations: SPARC T4-2 server 2 x SPARC T4 processors, 2.85 GHz 256 GB memory 1 x 8 Gbs FC Qlogic HBA 1 x 6 Gbs SAS HBA 4 x 300 GB internal disks Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (40 x 24 GB flash modules) 1 x Sun Fire X4275 server configured as COMSTAR head SPARC T3-4 server 4 x SPARC T3 processors, 1.6 GHz 512 GB memory 1 x 8 Gbs FC Qlogic HBA 8 x 146 GB internal disks 1 x Sun Fire X4275 server configured as COMSTAR head SPARC Enterprise M4000 server 4 x SPARC64 VII+ processors, 2.66 GHz 128 GB memory 1 x 8 Gbs FC Qlogic HBA 1 x 6 Gbs SAS HBA 2 x 146 GB internal disks Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (40 x 24 GB flash modules) 1 x Sun Fire X4275 server configured as COMSTAR head Software Configuration: Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 Oracle TimesTen 11.2.2.4 Benchmark Descriptions TimesTen Performance Throughput BenchMark (TPTBM) is shipped with TimesTen and measures the total throughput of the system. The workload can test read-only, update-only, delete and insert operations as required. Mobile Call Processing is a customer-based workload for processing calls made by mobile phone subscribers. The workload has a mixture of read-only, update, and insert-only transactions. The peak throughput performance is measured from multiple concurrent processes executing the transactions until a peak performance is reached via saturation of the available resources. Parallel Replication tests using both asynchronous and 2-Safe replication methods. For asynchronous replication, transactions are processed in batches to maximize the throughput capabilities of the replication server and network. In 2-Safe replication, also known as no data-loss or high availability, transactions are replicated between servers immediately emphasizing low latency. For both environments, performance is measured in the number of parallel replication servers and the maximum transactions-per-second for all concurrent processes. See Also SPARC T4-2 Server oracle.com OTN Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement Copyright 2012, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners. Results as of 1 October 2012.

    Read the article

  • Strange performance issue with Dell R7610 and LSI 2208 RAID controller

    - by GregC
    Connecting controller to any of the three PCIe x16 slots yield choppy read performance around 750 MB/sec Lowly PCIe x4 slot yields steady 1.2 GB/sec read Given same files, same Windows Server 2008 R2 OS, same RAID6 24-disk Seagate ES.2 3TB array on LSI 9286-8e, same Dell R7610 Precision Workstation with A03 BIOS, same W5000 graphics card (no other cards), same settings etc. I see super-low CPU utilization in both cases. SiSoft Sandra reports x8 at 5GT/sec in x16 slot, and x4 at 5GT/sec in x4 slot, as expected. I'd like to be able to rely on the sheer speed of x16 slots. What gives? What can I try? Any ideas? Please assist Cross-posted from http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/desktop/f/3514/t/19526990.aspx Follow-up information We did some more performance testing with reading from 8 SSDs, connected directly (without an expander chip). This means that both SAS cables were utilized. We saw nearly double performance, but it varied from run to run: {2.0, 1.8, 1.6, and 1.4 GB/sec were observed, then performance jumped back up to 2.0}. The SSD RAID0 tests were conducted in a x16 PCIe slot, all other variables kept the same. It seems to me that we were getting double the performance of HDD-based RAID6 array. Just for reference: maximum possible read burst speed over single channel of SAS 6Gb/sec is 570 MB/sec due to 8b/10b encoding and protocol limitations (SAS cable provides four such channels).

    Read the article

  • Looking for application performance tracking software

    - by JavaRocky
    I have multiple java-based applications which produce statistics on how long method calls take. Right now the information is being written into a log file and I analyse performance that way. However with multiple apps and more monitoring requirements this is being becoming a bit overwhelming. I am looking for an application which will collect stats and graph them so I can analyse performance and be aware of performance degradation. I have looked at Solarwinds Application Performance Monitoring, however this polls periodically to gather information. My applications are totally event based and we would like to graph and track this accordingly. I almost started hacking together some scripts to produce Google Charts but surely there are applications which do this already. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Hyper-V performance comparisons vs physical client?

    - by rwmnau
    Are there any comparisons between Hyper-V client machines and their physical equivalent? I've looked around and can find 4000 articles about improving Hyper-V performance, but I can't find any that actually do a side-by-side comparison or give benchmarking numbers. Ideally, I'm interested in a comparison of CPU, memory, disk, and graphics performance between something like the following: Some powerful workstation (with plenty of RAM) with Windows 7 installed on it directly Same exact worksation with Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 (the bare Server role) and a full-screen Windows 7 client machine Virtual Server 2005 had performance that didn't compare at all with actual hardware, but with the advances in CPU and hardware-level virtualization, has performance improved significantly? How obvious would it be to a user of the two above scenarios that one of them was virtualized, and does anybody know of actual benchmarking of this type?

    Read the article

  • LTO 2 tape performance in LTO 3 drive

    - by hmallett
    I have a pile of LTO 2 tapes, and both an LTO 2 drive (HP Ultrium 460e), and an autoloader with an LTO 3 drive in (Tandberg T24 autoloader, with a HP drive). Performance of the LTO 2 tapes in the LTO 2 drive is adequate and consistent. HP L&TT tells me that the tapes can be read and written at 64 MB/s, which seems in line with the performance specifications of the drive. When I perform a backup (over the network) using Symantec Backup Exec, I get about 1700 MB/min backup and verify speeds, which is slower, but still adequate. Performance of the LTO 2 tapes in the LTO 3 drive in the autoloader is a different story. HP L&TT tells me that the tapes can be read at 82 MB/s and written at 49 MB/s, which seems unusual at the write speed drop, but not the end of the world. When I perform a backup (over the network) using Symantec Backup Exec though, I get about 331 MB/min backup speed and 205 MB/min verify speeds, which is not only much slower, but also much slower for reads than for writes. Notes: The comparison testing was done on the same server, SCSI card and SCSI cable, with the same backup data set and the same tape each time. The tape and drives are error-free (according to HP L&TT and Backup Exec). The SCSI card is a U160 card, which is not normally recommended for LTO 3, but we're not writing to LTO 3 tapes at LTO 3 speeds, and a U320 SCSI card is not available to me at the moment. As I'm scratching my head to determine the reason for the performance drop, my first question is: While LTO drives can write to the previous generation LTO tapes, does doing so normally incur a performance penalty?

    Read the article

  • Raid-5 Performance per spindle scaling

    - by Bill N.
    So I am stuck in a corner, I have a storage project that is limited to 24 spindles, and requires heavy random Write (the corresponding read side is purely sequential). Needs every bit of space on my Drives, ~13TB total in a n-1 raid-5, and has to go fast, over 2GB/s sort of fast. The obvious answer is to use a Stripe/Concat (Raid-0/1), or better yet a raid-10 in place of the raid-5, but that is disallowed for reasons beyond my control. So I am here asking for help in getting a sub optimal configuration to be as good as it can be. The array built on direct attached SAS-2 10K rpm drives, backed by a ARECA 18xx series controller with 4GB of cache. 64k array stripes and an 4K stripe aligned XFS File system, with 24 Allocation groups (to avoid some of the penalty for being raid 5). The heart of my question is this: In the same setup with 6 spindles/AG's I see a near disk limited performance on the write, ~100MB/s per spindle, at 12 spindles I see that drop to ~80MB/s and at 24 ~60MB/s. I would expect that with a distributed parity and matched AG's, the performance should scale with the # of spindles, or be worse at small spindle counts, but this array is doing the opposite. What am I missing ? Should Raid-5 performance scale with # of spindles ? Many thanks for your answers and any ideas, input, or guidance. --Bill Edit: Improving RAID performance The other relevant thread I was able to find, discusses some of the same issues in the answers, though it still leaves me with out an answer on the performance scaling.

    Read the article

  • How to limit disk performance?

    - by DrakeES
    I am load-testing a web application and studying the impact of some config tweaks (related to disk i/o) on the overall app performance, i.e. the amount of users that can be handled simultaneously. But the problem is that I hit 100% CPU before I can see any effect of the disk-related config settings. I am therefore wondering if there is a way I could deliberately limit the disk performance so that it becomes the bottleneck and the tweaks I am trying to play with actually start impacting performance. Should I just make the hard disk busy with something else? What would serve the best for this purpose? More details (probably irrelevant, but anyway): PHP/Magento/Apache, studying the impact of apc.stat. Setting it to 0 makes APC not checking PHP scripts for modification which should increase performance where disk is the bottleneck. Using JMeter for benchmarking.

    Read the article

  • Good C++ books regarding Performance?

    - by Leon
    Besides the books everyone knows about, like Meyer's 3 Effective C++/STL books, are there any other really good C++ books specifically aimed towards performance code? Maybe this is for gaming, telecommunications, finance/high frequency etc? When I say performance I mean things where a normal C++ book wouldnt bother advising because the gain in performance isn't worthwhile for 95% of C++ developers. Maybe suggestions like avoiding virtual pointers, going into great depth about inlining etc? A book going into great depth on C++ memory allocation or multithreading performance would obviously be very useful.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >