Search Results

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

Page 11/1421 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • puzzled with java if else performance

    - by user1906966
    I am doing an investigation on a method's performance and finally identified the overhead was caused by the "else" portion of the if else statement. I have written a small program to illustrate the performance difference even when the else portion of the code never gets executed: public class TestIfPerf { public static void main( String[] args ) { boolean condition = true; long time = 0L; int value = 0; // warm up test for( int count=0; count<10000000; count++ ) { if ( condition ) { value = 1 + 2; } else { value = 1 + 3; } } // benchmark if condition only time = System.nanoTime(); for( int count=0; count<10000000; count++ ) { if ( condition ) { value = 1 + 2; } } time = System.nanoTime() - time; System.out.println( "1) performance " + time ); time = System.nanoTime(); // benchmark if else condition for( int count=0; count<10000000; count++ ) { if ( condition ) { value = 1 + 2; } else { value = 1 + 3; } } time = System.nanoTime() - time; System.out.println( "2) performance " + time ); } } and run the test program with java -classpath . -Dmx=800m -Dms=800m TestIfPerf. I performed this on both Mac and Linux Java with 1.6 latest build. Consistently the first benchmark, without the else is much faster than the second benchmark with the else section even though the code is structured such that the else portion is never executed because of the condition. I understand that to some, the difference might not be significant but the relative performance difference is large. I wonder if anyone has any insight to this (or maybe there is something I did incorrectly). Linux benchmark (in nano) performance 1215488 performance 2629531 Mac benchmark (in nano) performance 1667000 performance 4208000

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

    - by Mystagogue
    I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

    Read the article

  • Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010- Microsoft Mondays

    - by Hosam Kamel
    November 14th , I will be presenting at Microsoft Mondays a session about Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010 . Microsoft Mondays is program consisting of a series of Webcasts showcasing various Microsoft products and technologies. Each Monday we discuss a particular topic pertaining to development, infrastructure, Office tools, ERP, client/server operating systems etc. The webcast will be broadcast via Lync and can viewed from a web client. The idea behind the “Microsoft Mondays” program is to help you become more proficient in the products and technologies that you use and help you utilize their full potential.   Test Driven Development in Visual Studio 2010 Level – 300 (  Intermediate – Advanced ) Test Driven Development (TDD), also frequently referred to as Test Driven Design, is a development methodology where developers create software by first writing a unit test, then writing the actual system code to make the unit test pass.  The unit test can be viewed as a small specification around how the system should behave; writing it first helps the developer to focus on only writing enough code to make the test pass, thereby helping ensure a tight, lightweight system which is specifically focused meeting on the documented requirements. TDD follows a cadence of “Red, Green, Refactor.” Red refers to the visual display of a failing test – the test you write first will not pass because you have not yet written any code for it. Green refers to the step of writing just enough code in your system to make your unit test pass – your test runner’s UI will now show that test passing with a green icon. Refactor refers to the step of refactoring your code so it is tighter, cleaner, and more flexible. This cycle is repeated constantly throughout a TDD developer’s workday. Date:   November 14, 2011 Time:  10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (GMT+3)  http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2437620990/efbnen?ebtv=F   See you there! Hosam Kamel Originally posted at

    Read the article

  • Setting Up IRM Test Content

    - by martin.abrahams
    A feature of the 11g IRM Server that sometimes gets overlooked is the ability to set up some test content that any IRM user can access to verify that their IRM Desktop can reach the server, authenticate successfully, and render protected content successfully. Such test content is useful for new users, and in troubleshooting scenarios. Here's how to set up some test content... In the management console, go to IRM - Administration - Test Content, as shown. The console will display a list of test content - initially an empty list. Use the Add option to specify the URL of a document or image, and define one or more labels for the test content in whichever languages your users favour. Note that you do not need to seal the image or document in order to use it as test content. Nor do you need to set up any rights for the test content. The IRM Server will handle the sealing and rights assignment automatically such that all authenticated users are authorised to view the test content. Repeat this process for as many different types of content as you would like to offer for test purposes - perhaps a Word document, a PDF document, and an image. To keep things simple the first time I did this, I used the URL of one of the images in the IRM Server's UI - so there was no problem with the IRM Server being able to reach that image. Whatever content you want to use, the IRM Server needs to be able to reach it at the URL you specify. Using Test Content Open a browser and browse to the URL that the IRM Desktop normally uses to access the IRM Server, for example: http://irm11g.oracle.com/irm_desktop If you are not sure, you can find this URL in the Servers tab of the IRM Options dialog. Go to the Test tab, and you will see your test content listed. By opening one of the items, you can verify that your IRM Desktop is healthy and that you can authenticate to the IRM Server.

    Read the article

  • What do you think of a performance engineer should have?

    - by Vance
    I believe performance tuning (or even testing) is one the most challenging for an engineer. Well, in lots of company, this is the lowest priority than others "important" thing. My purpose of opening this post is to know what do you think*good* performance engineer should have. I can list some things like: Solid database,programming knowledge. Do single thread performance testing. Good knowledge of using the load generator tools to simulate the concurrent loads. Use different tools to monitor/measure the app/db server performance status Understand and can debug the codes. Even tune the codes. Any more ideas are always appreciated!

    Read the article

  • In MATLAB, how can 'preallocating' cell arrays improve performance?

    - by Alex McMurray
    I was reading this article on MathWorks about improving MATLAB performance and you will notice that one of the first suggestions is to preallocate arrays, which makes sense. But it also says that preallocating Cell arrays (that is arrays which may contain different, unknown datatypes) will improve performance. But how will doing so improve performance because the datatypes are unknown so it doesn't know how much contiguous memory it will require even if it knows the shape of the cell array, and therefore it can't preallocate the memory surely? So how does this result in any improvement in performance? I apologise if this question is better suited for StackOverflow than Programmers but it isn't asking about a specific problem so I thought it fit better here, please let me know if I am mistaken though. Any explanation would be greatly appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Does software rot refer primarily to performance, or to messy code?

    - by Kazark
    Wikipedia's definition of software rot focuses on the performance of the software. This is a different usage than I am used to; I had thought of it much more in terms of the cleanliness and design of the code—in terms of the code's having all the standard quality characteristics: readability, maintainability, etc. Now, performance is likely to go down when the code becomes unreadable, because no one knows what is going on. But does the term software rot have special reference to performance? or am I right in thinking it refers to the cleanliness of the code? or is this perhaps a case of multiple senses of the term being in common usage—from the user's perspective, it has do with performance; but for the software craftsman, it has to do more specifically with how the code reads?

    Read the article

  • Simple vs Complex (but performance efficient) solution - which one to choose and when?

    - by ManojGumber
    I have been programming for a couple of years and have often found myself at a dilemma. There are two solutions - one is simple one i.e. simple approach, easier to understand and maintain. It involves some redundancy, some extra work (extra IO, extra processing) and therefore is not the most optimal solution. but other uses a complex approach,difficult to implement, often involving interaction between lot of modules and is a performance efficient solution. Which solution should I strive for when I do not have hard performance SLA to meet and even the simple solution can meet the performance SLA? I have felt disdain among my fellow developers for simple solution. Is it good practice to come up with most optimal complex solution if your performance SLA can be met by a simple solution?

    Read the article

  • In the days of modern computing, in 'typical business apps' - why does performance matter?

    - by Prog
    This may seem like an odd question to some of you. I'm a hobbyist Java programmer. I have developed several games, an AI program that creates music, another program for painting, and similar stuff. This is to tell you that I have an experience in programming, but not in professional development of business applications. I see a lot of talk on this site about performance. People often debate what would be the most efficient algorithm in C# to perform a task, or why Python is slow and Java is faster, etc. What I'm trying to understand is: why does this matter? There are specific areas of computing where I see why performance matters: games, where tens of thousands of computations are happening every second in a constant-update loop, or low level systems which other programs rely on, such as OSs and VMs, etc. But for the normal, typical high-level business app, why does performance matter? I can understand why it used to matter, decades ago. Computers were much slower and had much less memory, so you had to think carefully about these things. But today, we have so much memory to spare and computers are so fast: does it actually matter if a particular Java algorithm is O(n^2)? Will it actually make a difference for the end users of this typical business app? When you press a GUI button in a typical business app, and behind the scenes it invokes an O(n^2) algorithm, in these days of modern computing - do you actually feel the inefficiency? My question is split in two: In practice, today does performance matter in a typical normal business program? If it does, please give me real-world examples of places in such an application, where performance and optimizations are important.

    Read the article

  • Performance of ClearCase servers on VMs?

    - by Garen
    Where I work, we are in need of upgrading our ClearCase servers and it's been proposed that we move them into a new (yet-to-be-deployed) VMmare system. In the past I've not noticed a significant problem with performance with most applications when running in VMs, but given that ClearCase "speed" (i.e. dynamic-view response times) is so latency sensitive I am concerned that this will not be a good idea. VMWare has numerous white-papers detailing performance related issues based on network traffic patterns that re-inforces my hypothesis, but nothing particularly concrete for this particular use case that I can see. What I can find are various forum posts online, but which are somewhat dated, e.g.: ClearCase clients are supported on VMWare, but not for performance issues. I would never put a production server on VM. It will work but will be slower. The more complex the slower it gets. accessing or building from a local snapshot view will be the fastest, building in a remote VM stored dynamic view using clearmake will be painful..... VMWare is best used for test environments (via http://www.cmcrossroads.com/forums?func=view&catid=31&id=44094&limit=10&start=10) and: VMware + ClearCase = works but SLUGGISH!!!!!! (windows)(not for production environment) My company tried to mandate that all new apps or app upgrades needed to be on/moved VMware instances. The VMware instance could not handle the demands of ClearCase. (come to find out that I was sharing a box with a database server) Will you know what else would be on that box besides ClearCase? Karl (via http://www.cmcrossroads.com/forums?func=view&id=44094&catid=31) and: ... are still finding we can't get the performance using dynamic views to below 2.5 times that of a physical machine. Interestingly, speaking to a few people with much VMWare experience and indeed from running builds, we are finding that typically, VMWare doesn't take that much longer for most applications and about 10-20% longer has been quoted. (via http://www.cmcrossroads.com/forums?func=view&catid=31&id=44094&limit=10&start=10) Which brings me to the more direct question: Does anyone have any more recent experience with ClearCase servers on VMware (if not any specific, relevant performance advice)?

    Read the article

  • Logging hurts MySQL performance - but, why?

    - by jimbo
    I'm quite surprised that I can't see an answer to this anywhere on the site already, nor in the MySQL documentation (section 5.2 seems to have logging otherwise well covered!) If I enable binlogs, I see a small performance hit (subjectively), which is to be expected with a little extra IO -- but when I enable a general query log, I see an enormous performance hit (double the time to run queries, or worse), way in excess of what I see with binlogs. Of course I'm now logging every SELECT as well as every UPDATE/INSERT, but, other daemons record their every request (Apache, Exim) without grinding to a halt. Am I just seeing the effects of being close to a performance "tipping point" when it comes to IO, or is there something fundamentally difficult about logging queries that causes this to happen? I'd love to be able to log all queries to make development easier, but I can't justify the kind of hardware it feels like we'd need to get performance back up with general query logging on. I do, of course, log slow queries, and there's negligible improvement in general usage if I disable this. (All of this is on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, MySQLd 5.1.49, but research suggests this is a fairly universal issue)

    Read the article

  • Looking for a short term solution to improve website performance with additional server

    - by Tanim Mirza
    I am working with a small team to run an internal website running with PHP 5.3.9, MySQL 5.0.77. All the files and database are hosted on a dedicated Linux machine with the following configuration: Intel Xeon E5450 8 CPU cores @3.00GHz, 2992.498 MHz, Cache 6148 KB, Cent OS – Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 We started small and then the database got bigger and now the website performance degraded significantly. We often get server space overrun, mysql overloaded with too many calls, etc. We don't have much experience dealing with these issues. We recently got another server that we were thinking to use to improve performance. Since it has better configuration, some of us wanted to completely move everything to the new machine. But I am trying to find out how we can utilize both machine for optimized performance. I found options such as MySQL clustering, Load balancer, etc. I was wondering if I could get any suggestion for this situation "How to utilize two machines in short term for best performance", that would be great. By short term we are looking for something that we can deploy in a month or so. Thanks in advance for your time.

    Read the article

  • Improving browser performance while using lots of tabs?

    - by Andrew
    My browsing habits cause me to open lots of windows and tabs, either related to different projects I'm working on or things I may want to read later. I use OSX and use about 5 spaces with multiple windows in each space. The problem is eventually I'll have around 200 or more tabs open (spread over 15-20 windows) that I don't want to close. Needless to say, my computer's performance starts to degrade. As I write this on my mobile, Safari on my laptop is locking up the computer. I used to use Chrome but found better performance with Safari. What I'd like to know, is there a graph of browser performance based on tab usage? I don't need a browser that keeps all tabs active. It would be great if the browser could increase performance by "putting tabs to sleep". Or if there was some sort of tool for saving a "workspace" of tabs that you could reactivate the next time you are working on that project. What sort of solution can you recommend to solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Effects of HTTP/TCP connection handshakes and server performance

    - by Blankman
    When running apache bench on the same server as the website like: ab -n 1000 -c 10 localhost:8080/ I am most probably not getting accurate results when compared to users hitting the server from various locations. I'm trying to understand how or rather why this will effect real world performance since a user in china will have different latency issues when compared to someone in the same state/country. Say my web server has a maximum thread limit of 100. Can someone explain in detail how end user latency can/will effect server performance. I'm assuming here that each request will be computed equally at say 10ms. What I'm not understand is how external factors can effect overal server performance, specifically internet connections (location, or even device like mobile) and http/tcp handshakes etc.

    Read the article

  • Query performance counters from powershell

    - by Frane Borozan
    I am trying this script to query performance counters in different localized windows server versions. http://www.powershellmagazine.com/2013/07/19/querying-performance-counters-from-powershell/ Everything works as in the article, well partially :-) I am trying to access a counter ID 3906 Terminal Services Session and works well for English windows. However for example in French and German that counter doesn't exist under that ID. I think I figured to find the exact counter under ID 1548 in french and German, but that ID in English is something completely different. Anybody seen this behavior on the performance counters?

    Read the article

  • RAID Array performance on an HP Proliant ML350 G5 Smart Array E200i

    - by Nate Pinchot
    We have a client who is complaining about performance of an application which utilizes an MS SQL database. They do not believe the performance issues are the fault of the application itself. The Smart Array E200i RAID controller has 128MB cache and we have the cache set to 75% read/25% write. The disk array set to enable write caching. Recently we ran a disk performance test using SQLIO based on this guide. We used a 10 GB file for the test found that the average sequential read rate was ~60 MB/sec (megabytes/sec) and the average random read rate was ~30 MB/sec. Are these numbers on par for what the server should be performing? Better than on par? Horrible? Amazing?

    Read the article

  • Enable: Asp.net connection pool monitoring with performance monitor

    - by BlackHawkDesign
    If this question is at the wrong forum, be free to tell me. I'm a c# developer, but I'm running in a system management issue here. Intro: Im suspecting that an asp.net application is having some issues with the connection pool and that the pool is flooding from time to time. So to make sure, I want to monitor the connection pool. After some searching I found this article : http://blog.idera.com/sql-server/performance-and-monitoring/ensure-proper-sql-server-connection-pooling-2/ Basicly it explains stuff about connection pools and how you can monitor the application pool with performance monitor. The problem: So I logged in to the asp.net server(The sql database is hosted on a different server) which hosts the website. Started performance monitor. But when I want to select 'Current # pooled and nonpooled connections', I have no instance to select. There fore I can't add it. Question How can I create/supply an instance so I can monitor the connection pool? Thanks in advance BHD

    Read the article

  • How does NTFS compression affect performance?

    - by DragonLord
    I've heard that NTFS compression can reduce performance due to extra CPU usage, but I've read reports that it may actually increase performance because of reduced disk reads. How exactly does NTFS compression affect system performance? Notes: I'm running a laptop with a 5400 RPM hard drive, and many of the things I do on it are I/O bound. The processor is a AMD Phenom II with four cores running at 2.0 GHz. The system is defragmented regularly using UltraDefrag. The workload is mixed read-write, with reads occurring somewhat more often than writes. The files to be compressed include personal documents and selected programs, including several (less demanding) games and Visual Studio (which tends to be I/O bound more often than not).

    Read the article

  • Server Performance

    - by Burt
    We have a dedicated server that we use to stage websites (our test server). The performance of the server has become really bad and we regularly have to restart it. When performance is poor I have checked task manager for the processes and memory but everything looks OK. We use a content management system and it is always when using the admin section of this CMS that we notice the performance degrade which makes me think it may have something to do with DB calls the CMS is making. Does this sound viable? Any other sggestions of how I can go about testing this? Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • Amazon EC2 performance vs desktop

    - by flashnik
    I'm wondering how to compare performance of EC2 instances with standard dedicated servers and desktop. I've found only comparance of defferent clouds. I need to find a solution to perform some computations which require CPU and memory (disc IO is not used). The choice is to use: EC2 (High-CPU) or Xeon 5620/5630 with DDR3 or Core i7-960/980 with DDR3 Can anybody help, how to compare their performance? I'm not speaking about reliability of alternatives, I want to understand pros and cons from the point of just performance.

    Read the article

  • Flushing disk cache for performance benchmarks?

    - by Ido Hadanny
    I'm doing some performance benchmark on some heavy SQL script running on postgres 8.4 on a ubuntu box (natty). I'm experiencing some pretty un-stable performance, even though I'm supposed to be the only one running on the machine (the same script on the exact same data might run in 20m and then 40m for no specific reason). So, remembering my distant DBA training, I decided I should flush the postgres cache, using sudo /etc/init.d/postgresql restart, but it's still shaky! My question: maybe I'm missing some caches in my disk/os? I'm using a netapp appliance as my storage. Am I on the right track? Do I even want to make sure I get repeatable performance before I start tuning?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Performance & Latching

    - by Colin
    I have a SQL server 2000 instance which runs several concurrent select statements on a group of 4 or 5 tables. Often the performance of the server during these queries becomes extremely diminished. The querys can take up to 10x as long as other runs of the same query, and it gets to the point where simple operations like getting the table list in object explorer or running sp_who can take several minutes. I've done my best to identify the cause of these issues, and the only performance metric which I've found to be off base is Average Latch Wait time. I've read that over 1 second wait time is bad, and mine ranges anywhere from 20 to 75 seconds under heavy use. So my question is, what could be the issue? Shouldn't SQL be able to handle multiple selects on a single table without losing so much performance? Can anyone suggest somewhere to go from here to investigate this problem? Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Recommended website performance monitoring services? [closed]

    - by Dennis G.
    I'm looking for a good performance monitoring service for websites. I know about some of the available general monitoring services that check for uptime and notify you about unavailable services. But I'm specifically looking for a service with an emphasis on performance. I.e., I would like to see reports with detailed performance statistics from multiple locations world-wide, with a break-down on how long it took to fetch the different website resources, including third-party scripts such as Google Analytics and so on (the report should contain similar details such as the FireBug Net tab). Are there any such services and if so, which one is the best?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Frameworks and Raw Throughput Performance

    - by Rick Strahl
    A few days ago I had a curious thought: With all these different technologies that the ASP.NET stack has to offer, what's the most efficient technology overall to return data for a server request? When I started this it was mere curiosity rather than a real practical need or result. Different tools are used for different problems and so performance differences are to be expected. But still I was curious to see how the various technologies performed relative to each just for raw throughput of the request getting to the endpoint and back out to the client with as little processing in the actual endpoint logic as possible (aka Hello World!). I want to clarify that this is merely an informal test for my own curiosity and I'm sharing the results and process here because I thought it was interesting. It's been a long while since I've done any sort of perf testing on ASP.NET, mainly because I've not had extremely heavy load requirements and because overall ASP.NET performs very well even for fairly high loads so that often it's not that critical to test load performance. This post is not meant to make a point  or even come to a conclusion which tech is better, but just to act as a reference to help understand some of the differences in perf and give a starting point to play around with this yourself. I've included the code for this simple project, so you can play with it and maybe add a few additional tests for different things if you like. Source Code on GitHub I looked at this data for these technologies: ASP.NET Web API ASP.NET MVC WebForms ASP.NET WebPages ASMX AJAX Services  (couldn't get AJAX/JSON to run on IIS8 ) WCF Rest Raw ASP.NET HttpHandlers It's quite a mixed bag, of course and the technologies target different types of development. What started out as mere curiosity turned into a bit of a head scratcher as the results were sometimes surprising. What I describe here is more to satisfy my curiosity more than anything and I thought it interesting enough to discuss on the blog :-) First test: Raw Throughput The first thing I did is test raw throughput for the various technologies. This is the least practical test of course since you're unlikely to ever create the equivalent of a 'Hello World' request in a real life application. The idea here is to measure how much time a 'NOP' request takes to return data to the client. So for this request I create the simplest Hello World request that I could come up for each tech. Http Handler The first is the lowest level approach which is an HTTP handler. public class Handler : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); } public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } } WebForms Next I added a couple of ASPX pages - one using CodeBehind and one using only a markup page. The CodeBehind page simple does this in CodeBehind without any markup in the ASPX page: public partial class HelloWorld_CodeBehind : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() ); Response.End(); } } while the Markup page only contains some static output via an expression:<%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="false" CodeBehind="HelloWorld_Markup.aspx.cs" Inherits="AspNetFrameworksPerformance.HelloWorld_Markup" %> Hello World. Time is <%= DateTime.Now %> ASP.NET WebPages WebPages is the freestanding Razor implementation of ASP.NET. Here's the simple HelloWorld.cshtml page:Hello World @DateTime.Now WCF REST WCF REST was the token REST implementation for ASP.NET before WebAPI and the inbetween step from ASP.NET AJAX. I'd like to forget that this technology was ever considered for production use, but I'll include it here. Here's an OperationContract class: [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] [WebGet] public Stream HelloWorld() { var data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello World" + DateTime.Now.ToString()); var ms = new MemoryStream(data); // Add your operation implementation here return ms; } } WCF REST can return arbitrary results by returning a Stream object and a content type. The code above turns the string result into a stream and returns that back to the client. ASP.NET AJAX (ASMX Services) I also wanted to test ASP.NET AJAX services because prior to WebAPI this is probably still the most widely used AJAX technology for the ASP.NET stack today. Unfortunately I was completely unable to get this running on my Windows 8 machine. Visual Studio 2012  removed adding of ASP.NET AJAX services, and when I tried to manually add the service and configure the script handler references it simply did not work - I always got a SOAP response for GET and POST operations. No matter what I tried I always ended up getting XML results even when explicitly adding the ScriptHandler. So, I didn't test this (but the code is there - you might be able to test this on a Windows 7 box). ASP.NET MVC Next up is probably the most popular ASP.NET technology at the moment: MVC. Here's the small controller: public class MvcPerformanceController : Controller { public ActionResult Index() { return View(); } public ActionResult HelloWorldCode() { return new ContentResult() { Content = "Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() }; } } ASP.NET WebAPI Next up is WebAPI which looks kind of similar to MVC. Except here I have to use a StringContent result to return the response: public class WebApiPerformanceController : ApiController { [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldCode() { return new HttpResponseMessage() { Content = new StringContent("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString(), Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain") }; } } Testing Take a minute to think about each of the technologies… and take a guess which you think is most efficient in raw throughput. The fastest should be pretty obvious, but the others - maybe not so much. The testing I did is pretty informal since it was mainly to satisfy my curiosity - here's how I did this: I used Apache Bench (ab.exe) from a full Apache HTTP installation to run and log the test results of hitting the server. ab.exe is a small executable that lets you hit a URL repeatedly and provides counter information about the number of requests, requests per second etc. ab.exe and the batch file are located in the \LoadTests folder of the project. An ab.exe command line  looks like this: ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorld which hits the specified URL 100,000 times with a load factor of 20 concurrent requests. This results in output like this:   It's a great way to get a quick and dirty performance summary. Run it a few times to make sure there's not a large amount of varience. You might also want to do an IISRESET to clear the Web Server. Just make sure you do a short test run to warm up the server first - otherwise your first run is likely to be skewed downwards. ab.exe also allows you to specify headers and provide POST data and many other things if you want to get a little more fancy. Here all tests are GET requests to keep it simple. I ran each test: 100,000 iterations Load factor of 20 concurrent connections IISReset before starting A short warm up run for API and MVC to make sure startup cost is mitigated Here is the batch file I used for the test: IISRESET REM make sure you add REM C:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\bin REM to your path so ab.exe can be found REM Warm up ab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldJsonab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson ab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorld ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/handler.ashx > handler.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/HelloWorld_CodeBehind.aspx > AspxCodeBehind.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/HelloWorld_Markup.aspx > AspxMarkup.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorld > Wcf.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldCode > Mvc.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorld > WebApi.txt I ran each of these tests 3 times and took the average score for Requests/second, with the machine otherwise idle. I did see a bit of variance when running many tests but the values used here are the medians. Part of this has to do with the fact I ran the tests on my local machine - result would probably more consistent running the load test on a separate machine hitting across the network. I ran these tests locally on my laptop which is a Dell XPS with quad core Sandibridge I7-2720QM @ 2.20ghz and a fast SSD drive on Windows 8. CPU load during tests ran to about 70% max across all 4 cores (IOW, it wasn't overloading the machine). Ideally you can try running these tests on a separate machine hitting the local machine. If I remember correctly IIS 7 and 8 on client OSs don't throttle so the performance here should be Results Ok, let's cut straight to the chase. Below are the results from the tests… It's not surprising that the handler was fastest. But it was a bit surprising to me that the next fastest was WebForms and especially Web Forms with markup over a CodeBehind page. WebPages also fared fairly well. MVC and WebAPI are a little slower and the slowest by far is WCF REST (which again I find surprising). As mentioned at the start the raw throughput tests are not overly practical as they don't test scripting performance for the HTML generation engines or serialization performances of the data engines. All it really does is give you an idea of the raw throughput for the technology from time of request to reaching the endpoint and returning minimal text data back to the client which indicates full round trip performance. But it's still interesting to see that Web Forms performs better in throughput than either MVC, WebAPI or WebPages. It'd be interesting to try this with a few pages that actually have some parsing logic on it, but that's beyond the scope of this throughput test. But what's also amazing about this test is the sheer amount of traffic that a laptop computer is handling. Even the slowest tech managed 5700 requests a second, which is one hell of a lot of requests if you extrapolate that out over a 24 hour period. Remember these are not static pages, but dynamic requests that are being served. Another test - JSON Data Service Results The second test I used a JSON result from several of the technologies. I didn't bother running WebForms and WebPages through this test since that doesn't make a ton of sense to return data from the them (OTOH, returning text from the APIs didn't make a ton of sense either :-) In these tests I have a small Person class that gets serialized and then returned to the client. The Person class looks like this: public class Person { public Person() { Id = 10; Name = "Rick"; Entered = DateTime.Now; } public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public DateTime Entered { get; set; } } Here are the updated handler classes that use Person: Handler public class Handler : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { var action = context.Request.QueryString["action"]; if (action == "json") JsonRequest(context); else TextRequest(context); } public void TextRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); } public void JsonRequest(HttpContext context) { var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(new Person(), Formatting.None); context.Response.ContentType = "application/json"; context.Response.Write(json); } public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } } This code adds a little logic to check for a action query string and route the request to an optional JSON result method. To generate JSON, I'm using the same JSON.NET serializer (JsonConvert.SerializeObject) used in Web API to create the JSON response. WCF REST   [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] [WebGet] public Stream HelloWorld() { var data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello World " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); var ms = new MemoryStream(data); // Add your operation implementation here return ms; } [OperationContract] [WebGet(ResponseFormat=WebMessageFormat.Json,BodyStyle=WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest)] public Person HelloWorldJson() { // Add your operation implementation here return new Person(); } } For WCF REST all I have to do is add a method with the Person result type.   ASP.NET MVC public class MvcPerformanceController : Controller { // // GET: /MvcPerformance/ public ActionResult Index() { return View(); } public ActionResult HelloWorldCode() { return new ContentResult() { Content = "Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() }; } public JsonResult HelloWorldJson() { return Json(new Person(), JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); } } For MVC all I have to do for a JSON response is return a JSON result. ASP.NET internally uses JavaScriptSerializer. ASP.NET WebAPI public class WebApiPerformanceController : ApiController { [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldCode() { return new HttpResponseMessage() { Content = new StringContent("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString(), Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain") }; } [HttpGet] public Person HelloWorldJson() { return new Person(); } [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldJson2() { var response = new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.OK); response.Content = new ObjectContent<Person>(new Person(), GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.JsonFormatter); return response; } } Testing and Results To run these data requests I used the following ab.exe commands:REM JSON RESPONSES ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/Handler.ashx?action=json > HandlerJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldJson > MvcJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson > WebApiJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorldJson > WcfJson.txt The results from this test run are a bit interesting in that the WebAPI test improved performance significantly over returning plain string content. Here are the results:   The performance for each technology drops a little bit except for WebAPI which is up quite a bit! From this test it appears that WebAPI is actually significantly better performing returning a JSON response, rather than a plain string response. Snag with Apache Benchmark and 'Length Failures' I ran into a little snag with Apache Benchmark, which was reporting failures for my Web API requests when serializing. As the graph shows performance improved significantly from with JSON results from 5580 to 6530 or so which is a 15% improvement (while all others slowed down by 3-8%). However, I was skeptical at first because the WebAPI test reports showed a bunch of errors on about 10% of the requests. Check out this report: Notice the Failed Request count. What the hey? Is WebAPI failing on roughly 10% of requests when sending JSON? Turns out: No it's not! But it took some sleuthing to figure out why it reports these failures. At first I thought that Web API was failing, and so to make sure I re-ran the test with Fiddler attached and runiisning the ab.exe test by using the -X switch: ab.exe -n100 -c10 -X localhost:8888 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson which showed that indeed all requests where returning proper HTTP 200 results with full content. However ab.exe was reporting the errors. After some closer inspection it turned out that the dates varying in size altered the response length in dynamic output. For example: these two results: {"Id":10,"Name":"Rick","Entered":"2012-09-04T10:57:24.841926-10:00"} {"Id":10,"Name":"Rick","Entered":"2012-09-04T10:57:24.8519262-10:00"} are different in length for the number which results in 68 and 69 bytes respectively. The same URL produces different result lengths which is what ab.exe reports. I didn't notice at first bit the same is happening when running the ASHX handler with JSON.NET result since it uses the same serializer that varies the milliseconds. Moral: You can typically ignore Length failures in Apache Benchmark and when in doubt check the actual output with Fiddler. Note that the other failure values are accurate though. Another interesting Side Note: Perf drops over Time As I was running these tests repeatedly I was finding that performance steadily dropped from a startup peak to a 10-15% lower stable level. IOW, with Web API I'd start out with around 6500 req/sec and in subsequent runs it keeps dropping until it would stabalize somewhere around 5900 req/sec occasionally jumping lower. For these tests this is why I did the IIS RESET and warm up for individual tests. This is a little puzzling. Looking at Process Monitor while the test are running memory very quickly levels out as do handles and threads, on the first test run. Subsequent runs everything stays stable, but the performance starts going downwards. This applies to all the technologies - Handlers, Web Forms, MVC, Web API - curious to see if others test this and see similar results. Doing an IISRESET then resets everything and performance starts off at peak again… Summary As I stated at the outset, these were informal to satiate my curiosity not to prove that any technology is better or even faster than another. While there clearly are differences in performance the differences (other than WCF REST which was by far the slowest and the raw handler which was by far the highest) are relatively minor, so there is no need to feel that any one technology is a runaway standout in raw performance. Choosing a technology is about more than pure performance but also about the adequateness for the job and the easy of implementation. The strengths of each technology will make for any minor performance difference we see in these tests. However, to me it's important to get an occasional reality check and compare where new technologies are heading. Often times old stuff that's been optimized and designed for a time of less horse power can utterly blow the doors off newer tech and simple checks like this let you compare. Luckily we're seeing that much of the new stuff performs well even in V1.0 which is great. To me it was very interesting to see Web API perform relatively badly with plain string content, which originally led me to think that Web API might not be properly optimized just yet. For those that caught my Tweets late last week regarding WebAPI's slow responses was with String content which is in fact considerably slower. Luckily where it counts with serialized JSON and XML WebAPI actually performs better. But I do wonder what would make generic string content slower than serialized code? This stresses another point: Don't take a single test as the final gospel and don't extrapolate out from a single set of tests. Certainly Twitter can make you feel like a fool when you post something immediate that hasn't been fleshed out a little more <blush>. Egg on my face. As a result I ended up screwing around with this for a few hours today to compare different scenarios. Well worth the time… I hope you found this useful, if not for the results, maybe for the process of quickly testing a few requests for performance and charting out a comparison. Now onwards with more serious stuff… Resources Source Code on GitHub Apache HTTP Server Project (ab.exe is part of the binary distribution)© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in ASP.NET  Web Api   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Revisiting ANTS Performance Profiler 7.4

    - by James Michael Hare
    Last year, I did a small review on the ANTS Performance Profiler 6.3, now that it’s a year later and a major version number higher, I thought I’d revisit the review and revise my last post. This post will take the same examples as the original post and update them to show what’s new in version 7.4 of the profiler. Background A performance profiler’s main job is to keep track of how much time is typically spent in each unit of code. This helps when we have a program that is not running at the performance we expect, and we want to know where the program is experiencing issues. There are many profilers out there of varying capabilities. Red Gate’s typically seem to be the very easy to “jump in” and get started with very little training required. So let’s dig into the Performance Profiler. I’ve constructed a very crude program with some obvious inefficiencies. It’s a simple program that generates random order numbers (or really could be any unique identifier), adds it to a list, sorts the list, then finds the max and min number in the list. Ignore the fact it’s very contrived and obviously inefficient, we just want to use it as an example to show off the tool: 1: // our test program 2: public static class Program 3: { 4: // the number of iterations to perform 5: private static int _iterations = 1000000; 6: 7: // The main method that controls it all 8: public static void Main() 9: { 10: var list = new List<string>(); 11: 12: for (int i = 0; i < _iterations; i++) 13: { 14: var x = GetNextId(); 15: 16: AddToList(list, x); 17: 18: var highLow = GetHighLow(list); 19: 20: if ((i % 1000) == 0) 21: { 22: Console.WriteLine("{0} - High: {1}, Low: {2}", i, highLow.Item1, highLow.Item2); 23: Console.Out.Flush(); 24: } 25: } 26: } 27: 28: // gets the next order id to process (random for us) 29: public static string GetNextId() 30: { 31: var random = new Random(); 32: var num = random.Next(1000000, 9999999); 33: return num.ToString(); 34: } 35: 36: // add it to our list - very inefficiently! 37: public static void AddToList(List<string> list, string item) 38: { 39: list.Add(item); 40: list.Sort(); 41: } 42: 43: // get high and low of order id range - very inefficiently! 44: public static Tuple<int,int> GetHighLow(List<string> list) 45: { 46: return Tuple.Create(list.Max(s => Convert.ToInt32(s)), list.Min(s => Convert.ToInt32(s))); 47: } 48: } So let’s run it through the profiler and see what happens! Visual Studio Integration First, let’s look at how the ANTS profilers integrate with Visual Studio’s menu system. Once you install the ANTS profilers, you will get an ANTS menu item with several options: Notice that you can either Profile Performance or Launch ANTS Performance Profiler. These sound similar but achieve two slightly different actions: Profile Performance: this immediately launches the profiler with all defaults selected to profile the active project in Visual Studio. Launch ANTS Performance Profiler: this launches the profiler much the same way as starting it from the Start Menu. The profiler will pre-populate the application and path information, but allow you to change the settings before beginning the profile run. So really, the main difference is that Profile Performance immediately begins profiling with the default selections, where Launch ANTS Performance Profiler allows you to change the defaults and attach to an already-running application. Let’s Fire it Up! So when you fire up ANTS either via Start Menu or Launch ANTS Performance Profiler menu in Visual Studio, you are presented with a very simple dialog to get you started: Notice you can choose from many different options for application type. You can profile executables, services, web applications, or just attach to a running process. In fact, in version 7.4 we see two new options added: ASP.NET Web Application (IIS Express) SharePoint web application (IIS) So this gives us an additional way to profile ASP.NET applications and the ability to profile SharePoint applications as well. You can also choose your level of detail in the Profiling Mode drop down. If you choose Line-Level and method-level timings detail, you will get a lot more detail on the method durations, but this will also slow down profiling somewhat. If you really need the profiler to be as unintrusive as possible, you can change it to Sample method-level timings. This is performing very light profiling, where basically the profiler collects timings of a method by examining the call-stack at given intervals. Which method you choose depends a lot on how much detail you need to find the issue and how sensitive your program issues are to timing. So for our example, let’s just go with the line and method timing detail. So, we check that all the options are correct (if you launch from VS2010, the executable and path are filled in already), and fire it up by clicking the [Start Profiling] button. Profiling the Application Once you start profiling the application, you will see a real-time graph of CPU usage that will indicate how much your application is using the CPU(s) on your system. During this time, you can select segments of the graph and bookmark them, giving them mnemonic names. This can be useful if you want to compare performance in one part of the run to another part of the run. Notice that once you select a block, it will give you the call tree breakdown for that selection only, and the relative performance of those calls. Once you feel you have collected enough information, you can click [Stop Profiling] to stop the application run and information collection and begin a more thorough analysis. Analyzing Method Timings So now that we’ve halted the run, we can look around the GUI and see what we can see. By default, the times are shown in terms of percentage of time of the total run of the application, though you can change it in the View menu item to milliseconds, ticks, or seconds as well. This won’t affect the percentages of methods, it only affects what units the times are shown. Notice also that the major hotspot seems to be in a method without source, ANTS Profiler will filter these out by default, but you can right-click on the line and remove the filter to see more detail. This proves especially handy when a bottleneck is due to a method in the BCL. So now that we’ve removed the filter, we see a bit more detail: In addition, ANTS Performance Profiler gives you the ability to decompile the methods without source so that you can dive even deeper, though typically this isn’t necessary for our purposes. When looking at timings, there are generally two types of timings for each method call: Time: This is the time spent ONLY in this method, not including calls this method makes to other methods. Time With Children: This is the total of time spent in both this method AND including calls this method makes to other methods. In other words, the Time tells you how much work is being done exclusively in this method, and the Time With Children tells you how much work is being done inclusively in this method and everything it calls. You can also choose to display the methods in a tree or in a grid. The tree view is the default and it shows the method calls arranged in terms of the tree representing all method calls and the parent method that called them, etc. This is useful for when you find a hot-spot method, you can see who is calling it to determine if the problem is the method itself, or if it is being called too many times. The grid method represents each method only once with its totals and is useful for quickly seeing what method is the trouble spot. In addition, you can choose to display Methods with source which are generally the methods you wrote (as opposed to native or BCL code), or Any Method which shows not only your methods, but also native calls, JIT overhead, synchronization waits, etc. So these are just two ways of viewing the same data, and you’re free to choose the organization that best suits what information you are after. Analyzing Method Source If we look at the timings above, we see that our AddToList() method (and in particular, it’s call to the List<T>.Sort() method in the BCL) is the hot-spot in this analysis. If ANTS sees a method that is consuming the most time, it will flag it as a hot-spot to help call out potential areas of concern. This doesn’t mean the other statistics aren’t meaningful, but that the hot-spot is most likely going to be your biggest bang-for-the-buck to concentrate on. So let’s select the AddToList() method, and see what it shows in the source window below: Notice the source breakout in the bottom pane when you select a method (from either tree or grid view). This shows you the timings in this method per line of code. This gives you a major indicator of where the trouble-spot in this method is. So in this case, we see that performing a Sort() on the List<T> after every Add() is killing our performance! Of course, this was a very contrived, duh moment, but you’d be surprised how many performance issues become duh moments. Note that this one line is taking up 86% of the execution time of this application! If we eliminate this bottleneck, we should see drastic improvement in the performance. So to fix this, if we still wanted to maintain the List<T> we’d have many options, including: delay Sort() until after all Add() methods, using a SortedSet, SortedList, or SortedDictionary depending on which is most appropriate, or forgoing the sorting all together and using a Dictionary. Rinse, Repeat! So let’s just change all instances of List<string> to SortedSet<string> and run this again through the profiler: Now we see the AddToList() method is no longer our hot-spot, but now the Max() and Min() calls are! This is good because we’ve eliminated one hot-spot and now we can try to correct this one as well. As before, we can then optimize this part of the code (possibly by taking advantage of the fact the list is now sorted and returning the first and last elements). We can then rinse and repeat this process until we have eliminated as many bottlenecks as possible. Calls by Web Request Another feature that was added recently is the ability to view .NET methods grouped by the HTTP requests that caused them to run. This can be helpful in determining which pages, web services, etc. are causing hot spots in your web applications. Summary If you like the other ANTS tools, you’ll like the ANTS Performance Profiler as well. It is extremely easy to use with very little product knowledge required to get up and running. There are profilers built into the higher product lines of Visual Studio, of course, which are also powerful and easy to use. But for quickly jumping in and finding hot spots rapidly, Red Gate’s Performance Profiler 7.4 is an excellent choice. Technorati Tags: Influencers,ANTS,Performance Profiler,Profiler

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >