Search Results

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

Page 20/1421 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • During Spring unit test, data written to db but test not seeing the data

    - by richever
    I wrote a test case that extends AbstractTransactionalJUnit4SpringContextTests. The single test case I've written creates an instance of class User and attempts to write it to the database using Hibernate. The test code then uses SimpleJdbcTemplate to execute a simple select count(*) from the user table to determine if the user was persisted to the database or not. The test always fails though. I was suspect because in the Spring controller I wrote, the ability to save an instance of User to the db is successful. So I added the Rollback annotation to the unit test and sure enough, the data is written to the database since I can even see it in the appropriate table -- the transaction isn't rolled back when the test case is finished. Here's my test case: @ContextConfiguration(locations = { "classpath:context-daos.xml", "classpath:context-dataSource.xml", "classpath:context-hibernate.xml"}) public class UserDaoTest extends AbstractTransactionalJUnit4SpringContextTests { @Autowired private UserDao userDao; @Test @Rollback(false) public void teseCreateUser() { try { UserModel user = randomUser(); String username = user.getUserName(); long id = userDao.create(user); String query = "select count(*) from public.usr where usr_name = '%s'"; long count = simpleJdbcTemplate.queryForLong(String.format(query, username)); Assert.assertEquals("User with username should be in the db", 1, count); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); Assert.assertNull("testCreateUser: " + e.getMessage()); } } } I think I was remiss by not adding the configuration files. context-hibernate.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation=" http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-3.0.xsd> <bean id="namingStrategy" class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.FieldRetrievingFactoryBean"> <property name="staticField"> <value>org.hibernate.cfg.ImprovedNamingStrategy.INSTANCE</value> </property> </bean> <bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.LocalSessionFactoryBean" destroy-method="destroy" scope="singleton"> <property name="namingStrategy"> <ref bean="namingStrategy"/> </property> <property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/> <property name="mappingResources"> <list> <value>com/company/model/usr.hbm.xml</value> </list> </property> <property name="hibernateProperties"> <props> <prop key="hibernate.dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.PostgreSQLDialect</prop> <prop key="hibernate.show_sql">true</prop> <prop key="hibernate.use_sql_comments">true</prop> <prop key="hibernate.query.substitutions">yes 'Y', no 'N'</prop> <prop key="hibernate.cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.EhCacheProvider</prop> <prop key="hibernate.cache.use_query_cache">true</prop> <prop key="hibernate.cache.use_minimal_puts">false</prop> <prop key="hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache">true</prop> <prop key="hibernate.current_session_context_class">thread</prop> </props> </property> </bean> <bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager"> <property name="sessionFactory" ref="sessionFactory"/> <property name="nestedTransactionAllowed" value="false" /> </bean> <bean id="transactionInterceptor" class="org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionInterceptor"> <property name="transactionManager"> <ref local="transactionManager"/> </property> <property name="transactionAttributes"> <props> <prop key="create">PROPAGATION_REQUIRED</prop> <prop key="delete">PROPAGATION_REQUIRED</prop> <prop key="update">PROPAGATION_REQUIRED</prop> <prop key="*">PROPAGATION_SUPPORTS,readOnly</prop> </props> </property> </bean> </beans> context-dataSource.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation=" http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-3.0.xsd"> <bean id="dataSource" class="com.mchange.v2.c3p0.ComboPooledDataSource" destroy-method="close"> <property name="driverClass" value="org.postgresql.Driver" /> <property name="jdbcUrl" value="jdbc\:postgresql\://localhost:5432/company_dev" /> <property name="user" value="postgres" /> <property name="password" value="postgres" /> </bean> </beans> context-daos.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation=" http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-3.0.xsd"> <bean id="extendedFinderNamingStrategy" class="com.company.dao.finder.impl.ExtendedFinderNamingStrategy"/> <bean id="finderIntroductionAdvisor" class="com.company.dao.finder.impl.FinderIntroductionAdvisor"/> <bean id="abstractDaoTarget" class="com.company.dao.impl.GenericDaoHibernateImpl" abstract="true" depends-on="sessionFactory"> <property name="sessionFactory"> <ref bean="sessionFactory"/> </property> <property name="namingStrategy"> <ref bean="extendedFinderNamingStrategy"/> </property> </bean> <bean id="abstractDao" class="org.springframework.aop.framework.ProxyFactoryBean" abstract="true"> <property name="interceptorNames"> <list> <value>transactionInterceptor</value> <value>finderIntroductionAdvisor</value> </list> </property> </bean> <bean id="userDao" parent="abstractDao"> <property name="proxyInterfaces"> <value>com.company.dao.UserDao</value> </property> <property name="target"> <bean parent="abstractDaoTarget"> <constructor-arg> <value>com.company.model.UserModel</value> </constructor-arg> </bean> </property> </bean> </beans> Some of this I've inherited from someone else. I wouldn't have used the proxying that is going on here because I'm not sure it's needed but this is what I'm working with. Any help much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is the Joel Test really a good gauging tool?

    - by henry
    I just learned about the Joel Test. I have been computer programmer for 22 years, but somehow I never heard about it before. I consider my best job so far to be this small investment managing company with 30 employees and only three people in the IT department. I am no longer with them, but I had being working there for five years – my longest streak with any given company. To my surprise they scored extremely poor on the Joel Test. The only two questions I would answer “yes” are #4: Do you have a bug database? And #9: Do you use the best tools money can buy? Everything else is either “sometimes” or straight “no”. Here is what I liked about the company however: Good pay. They bragged about it to my face, and I bragged about it to their face, so it was almost like a family environment. I always knew the big picture. When writing code to solve a particular problem there were no ambiguity about the business nature of that problem. Even though we did not always had written specifications we could ask business users a question anytime, often yelling it across the floor. I could even talk to executives any time I felt like doing it: no appointment necessary. Immediate feedback. Once we implement a solution and make business users happy they immediately let us know that, we (programmers) become heroes of the moment. No red tape. I could always buy any tools I deemed necessary, and design solutions the way my professional judgment dictates. Flexibility. If I had mid-day dental appointment that is near my house rather than near the office, I would send email to the company: "FYI: I work from home today". As long as one of three IT guys was on the floor (to help traders in case their monitors go dark) they did not care where two others were. So the question thus becomes: How valuable is the Joel Test? Why bother with it?

    Read the article

  • Performance Tuning a High-Load Apache Server

    - by futureal
    I am looking to understand some server performance problems I am seeing with a (for us) heavily loaded web server. The environment is as follows: Debian Lenny (all stable packages + patched to security updates) Apache 2.2.9 PHP 5.2.6 Amazon EC2 large instance The behavior we're seeing is that the web typically feels responsive, but with a slight delay to begin handling a request -- sometimes a fraction of a second, sometimes 2-3 seconds in our peak usage times. The actual load on the server is being reported as very high -- often 10.xx or 20.xx as reported by top. Further, running other things on the server during these times (even vi) is very slow, so the load is definitely up there. Oddly enough Apache remains very responsive, other than that initial delay. We have Apache configured as follows, using prefork: StartServers 5 MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 And KeepAlive as: KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 5 Looking at the server-status page, even at these times of heavy load we are rarely hitting the client cap, usually serving between 80-100 requests and many of those in the keepalive state. That tells me to rule out the initial request slowness as "waiting for a handler" but I may be wrong. Amazon's CloudWatch monitoring tells me that even when our OS is reporting a load of 15, our instance CPU utilization is between 75-80%. Example output from top: top - 15:47:06 up 31 days, 1:38, 8 users, load average: 11.46, 7.10, 6.56 Tasks: 221 total, 28 running, 193 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 66.9%us, 22.1%sy, 0.0%ni, 2.6%id, 3.1%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.7%si, 4.5%st Mem: 7871900k total, 7850624k used, 21276k free, 68728k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 3750664k cached The majority of the processes look like: 24720 www-data 15 0 202m 26m 4412 S 9 0.3 0:02.97 apache2 24530 www-data 15 0 212m 35m 4544 S 7 0.5 0:03.05 apache2 24846 www-data 15 0 209m 33m 4420 S 7 0.4 0:01.03 apache2 24083 www-data 15 0 211m 35m 4484 S 7 0.5 0:07.14 apache2 24615 www-data 15 0 212m 35m 4404 S 7 0.5 0:02.89 apache2 Example output from vmstat at the same time as the above: procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 8 0 0 215084 68908 3774864 0 0 154 228 5 7 32 12 42 9 6 21 0 198948 68936 3775740 0 0 676 2363 4022 1047 56 16 9 15 23 0 0 169460 68936 3776356 0 0 432 1372 3762 835 76 21 0 0 23 1 0 140412 68936 3776648 0 0 280 0 3157 827 70 25 0 0 20 1 0 115892 68936 3776792 0 0 188 8 2802 532 68 24 0 0 6 1 0 133368 68936 3777780 0 0 752 71 3501 878 67 29 0 1 0 1 0 146656 68944 3778064 0 0 308 2052 3312 850 38 17 19 24 2 0 0 202104 68952 3778140 0 0 28 90 2617 700 44 13 33 5 9 0 0 188960 68956 3778200 0 0 8 0 2226 475 59 17 6 2 3 0 0 166364 68956 3778252 0 0 0 21 2288 386 65 19 1 0 And finally, output from Apache's server-status: Server uptime: 31 days 2 hours 18 minutes 31 seconds Total accesses: 60102946 - Total Traffic: 974.5 GB CPU Usage: u209.62 s75.19 cu0 cs0 - .0106% CPU load 22.4 requests/sec - 380.3 kB/second - 17.0 kB/request 107 requests currently being processed, 6 idle workers C.KKKW..KWWKKWKW.KKKCKK..KKK.KKKK.KK._WK.K.K.KKKKK.K.R.KK..C.C.K K.C.K..WK_K..KKW_CK.WK..W.KKKWKCKCKW.W_KKKKK.KKWKKKW._KKK.CKK... KK_KWKKKWKCKCWKK.KKKCK.......................................... ................................................................ From my limited experience I draw the following conclusions/questions: We may be allowing far too many KeepAlive requests I do see some time spent waiting for IO in the vmstat although not consistently and not a lot (I think?) so I am not sure this is a big concern or not, I am less experienced with vmstat Also in vmstat, I see in some iterations a number of processes waiting to be served, which is what I am attributing the initial page load delay on our web server to, possibly erroneously We serve a mixture of static content (75% or higher) and script content, and the script content is often fairly processor intensive, so finding the right balance between the two is important; long term we want to move statics elsewhere to optimize both servers but our software is not ready for that today I am happy to provide additional information if anybody has any ideas, the other note is that this is a high-availability production installation so I am wary of making tweak after tweak, and is why I haven't played with things like the KeepAlive value myself yet.

    Read the article

  • What is recommended minimum object size for gzip performance benefits?

    - by utt73
    I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this down to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs (since CDNs base their charges on bandwith offloaded from origin), or is there a performance gain in doing so?

    Read the article

  • How do I measure performance of a virtual server?

    - by Sergey
    I've got a VPS running Ubuntu. Being a virtual server, I understand that it shares resources with unknown number of other servers, and I'm noticing that it's considerably slower than my desktop machine. Is there some tool to measure the performance of the virtual machine? I'd be curious to see some approximate measure similar to bogomips, possibly for CPU (operations/sec), memory and disk read/write speed. I'd like to be able to compare those numbers to my desktop machine. I'm not interested in the specs of the actual physical machine my VPS is running on - by doing cat /proc/cpuinfo I can see that it's a nice quad-core Xeon machine, but it doesn't matter to me. I'm basically interested in how fast a program would run in my VPS - how many CPU operations it can make in a second, how many bytes to write to RAM or to disk. I only have ssh access to the machine so the tool need to be command-line. I could write a script which, say, does some calculations in a loop for a second and counts how many loops it was able to do, or something similar to measure disk and RAM performance. But I'm sure something like this already exists.

    Read the article

  • Performing client-side OAuth authorized Twitter API calls versus server side, how much of a difference is there in terms of performance?

    - by Terence Ponce
    I'm working on a Twitter application in Ruby on Rails. One of the biggest arguments that I have with other people on the project is the method of calling the Twitter API. Before, everything was done on the server: OAuth login, updating the user's Twitter data, and retrieving tweets. Retrieving tweets was the heaviest thing to do since we don't store the tweets in our database, so viewing the tweets means that we have to call the API every time. One of the people in the project suggested that we call the tweets through Javascript instead to lessen the load on the server. We used GET search, which, correct me if I'm wrong, will be removed when v1.0 becomes completely deprecated, but that really isn't a concern now. When the Twitter API has migrated completely to v1.1 (again, correct me if I'm wrong), every calls to the API must be authenticated, so we have to authenticate our Javascript requests to the API. As said here: We don't support or recommend performing OAuth directly through Javascript -- it's insecure and puts your application at risk. The only acceptable way to perform it is if you kept all keys and secrets server-side, computed the OAuth signatures and parameters server side, then issued the request client-side from the server-generated OAuth values. If we do exactly what Twitter suggests, the only difference between this and doing everything server-side is that our server won't have to contact the Twitter API anymore every time the user wants to view tweets. Here's how I would picture what's happening every time the user makes a request: If we do it through Javascript, it would be harder on my part because I would have to create the signatures manually for every request, but I will gladly do it if the boost in performance is worth all the trouble. Doing it through Ruby on Rails would be very easy since the Twitter gem does most of the grunt work already, so I'm really encouraging the other people in the project to agree with me. Is the difference in performance trivial or is it significant enough to switch to Javascript?

    Read the article

  • How to squeeze the maximum performance out of Unity and GNOME 3?

    - by melvincv
    I see that I do not get good performance with the new Unity desktop, but I should say that Unity has improved a lot since the last edition Ubuntu 11.10. How to squeeze the maximum performance out of 1. Unity 2. GNOME 3 My system specs: -Processors- Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00GHz -Memory- Total Memory : 2049996 kB -PCI Devices- Host bridge : Intel Corporation 82G33/G31/P35/P31 Express DRAM Controller (rev 10) PCI bridge : Intel Corporation 82G33/G31/P35/P31 Express PCI Express Root Port (rev 10) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) VGA compatible controller : Intel Corporation 82G33/G31 Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 10) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller]) USB controller : Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #1 (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [UHCI]) USB controller : Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #2 (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [UHCI]) USB controller : Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #3 (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [UHCI]) USB controller : Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #4 (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [UHCI]) USB controller : Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB2 EHCI Controller (rev 01) (prog-if 20 [EHCI]) PCI bridge : Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev e1) (prog-if 01 [Subtractive decode]) ISA bridge : Intel Corporation 82801GB/GR (ICH7 Family) LPC Interface Bridge (rev 01) IDE interface : Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) IDE Controller (rev 01) (prog-if 8a [Master SecP PriP]) IDE interface : Intel Corporation N10/ICH7 Family SATA Controller [IDE mode] (rev 01) (prog-if 8f [Master SecP SecO PriP PriO]) SMBus : Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family SMBus Controller (rev 01) Ethernet controller : Intel Corporation PRO/100 VE Network Connection (rev 01)

    Read the article

  • Premature-Optimization and Performance Anxiety

    - by James Michael Hare
    While writing my post analyzing the new .NET 4 ConcurrentDictionary class (here), I fell into one of the classic blunders that I myself always love to warn about.  After analyzing the differences of time between a Dictionary with locking versus the new ConcurrentDictionary class, I noted that the ConcurrentDictionary was faster with read-heavy multi-threaded operations.  Then, I made the classic blunder of thinking that because the original Dictionary with locking was faster for those write-heavy uses, it was the best choice for those types of tasks.  In short, I fell into the premature-optimization anti-pattern. Basically, the premature-optimization anti-pattern is when a developer is coding very early for a perceived (whether rightly-or-wrongly) performance gain and sacrificing good design and maintainability in the process.  At best, the performance gains are usually negligible and at worst, can either negatively impact performance, or can degrade maintainability so much that time to market suffers or the code becomes very fragile due to the complexity. Keep in mind the distinction above.  I'm not talking about valid performance decisions.  There are decisions one should make when designing and writing an application that are valid performance decisions.  Examples of this are knowing the best data structures for a given situation (Dictionary versus List, for example) and choosing performance algorithms (linear search vs. binary search).  But these in my mind are macro optimizations.  The error is not in deciding to use a better data structure or algorithm, the anti-pattern as stated above is when you attempt to over-optimize early on in such a way that it sacrifices maintainability. In my case, I was actually considering trading the safety and maintainability gains of the ConcurrentDictionary (no locking required) for a slight performance gain by using the Dictionary with locking.  This would have been a mistake as I would be trading maintainability (ConcurrentDictionary requires no locking which helps readability) and safety (ConcurrentDictionary is safe for iteration even while being modified and you don't risk the developer locking incorrectly) -- and I fell for it even when I knew to watch out for it.  I think in my case, and it may be true for others as well, a large part of it was due to the time I was trained as a developer.  I began college in in the 90s when C and C++ was king and hardware speed and memory were still relatively priceless commodities and not to be squandered.  In those days, using a long instead of a short could waste precious resources, and as such, we were taught to try to minimize space and favor performance.  This is why in many cases such early code-bases were very hard to maintain.  I don't know how many times I heard back then to avoid too many function calls because of the overhead -- and in fact just last year I heard a new hire in the company where I work declare that she didn't want to refactor a long method because of function call overhead.  Now back then, that may have been a valid concern, but with today's modern hardware even if you're calling a trivial method in an extremely tight loop (which chances are the JIT compiler would optimize anyway) the results of removing method calls to speed up performance are negligible for the great majority of applications.  Now, obviously, there are those coding applications where speed is absolutely king (for example drivers, computer games, operating systems) where such sacrifices may be made.  But I would strongly advice against such optimization because of it's cost.  Many folks that are performing an optimization think it's always a win-win.  That they're simply adding speed to the application, what could possibly be wrong with that?  What they don't realize is the cost of their choice.  For every piece of straight-forward code that you obfuscate with performance enhancements, you risk the introduction of bugs in the long term technical debt of the application.  It will become so fragile over time that maintenance will become a nightmare.  I've seen such applications in places I have worked.  There are times I've seen applications where the designer was so obsessed with performance that they even designed their own memory management system for their application to try to squeeze out every ounce of performance.  Unfortunately, the application stability often suffers as a result and it is very difficult for anyone other than the original designer to maintain. I've even seen this recently where I heard a C++ developer bemoaning that in VS2010 the iterators are about twice as slow as they used to be because Microsoft added range checking (probably as part of the 0x standard implementation).  To me this was almost a joke.  Twice as slow sounds bad, but it almost never as bad as you think -- especially if you're gaining safety.  The only time twice is really that much slower is when once was too slow to begin with.  Think about it.  2 minutes is slow as a response time because 1 minute is slow.  But if an iterator takes 1 microsecond to move one position and a new, safer iterator takes 2 microseconds, this is trivial!  The only way you'd ever really notice this would be in iterating a collection just for the sake of iterating (i.e. no other operations).  To my mind, the added safety makes the extra time worth it. Always favor safety and maintainability when you can.  I know it can be a hard habit to break, especially if you started out your career early or in a language such as C where they are very performance conscious.  But in reality, these type of micro-optimizations only end up hurting you in the long run. Remember the two laws of optimization.  I'm not sure where I first heard these, but they are so true: For beginners: Do not optimize. For experts: Do not optimize yet. This is so true.  If you're a beginner, resist the urge to optimize at all costs.  And if you are an expert, delay that decision.  As long as you have chosen the right data structures and algorithms for your task, your performance will probably be more than sufficient.  Chances are it will be network, database, or disk hits that will be your slow-down, not your code.  As they say, 98% of your code's bottleneck is in 2% of your code so premature-optimization may add maintenance and safety debt that won't have any measurable impact.  Instead, code for maintainability and safety, and then, and only then, when you find a true bottleneck, then you should go back and optimize further.

    Read the article

  • boost.test and eclipse

    - by Anton Potapov
    Hi all, I'm using Eclipse CDT and Boost.Test(with Boost.Build). I would like Eclipse to parse output of Boost.Test generated during by run of test suites during build. Does anybody know how to achieve this? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • VS 2010 Test Runner error "The agent process was stopped while the test was running."

    - by driis
    In Visual Studio 2010, I have a number of unit tests. When I run multiple tests at one time using test lists, I sometimes reveive the following error for one or more of the tests: The agent process was stopped while the test was running. It is never the same test failing, and if I try to run the test again, it succeeds. I found this bug report on Connect, which seems to be the same problem, but it does not offer a solution. Has anyone else seen this behaviour ? How I can avoid it ?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid Memory "Hard Fault/sec"

    - by Flavio Oliveira
    i've a problem on my windows 2008 server x64, and i cannot understand how can i solve it. i'm looking to Resource Monitor and see about 100 to 200 hard faults/sec. and generally the machine is slow. As i've readed a bit it is caused by a "memory Page" that is no longer available on physical memory and causes a io operations (disk) and it is a problem. The current hardware is a intel core2duo E8400 (3.0GHz) with 6GB RAM on a Windows Server Web 64-bit. Actually the machine have about 2GB Ram used what having 4Gb available to use, Why is the machine requires that high level of Disk operations? what can i do to increase the performance? Im experiencing a memory issues? what should be my starting point?

    Read the article

  • Problem while executing test case in VS2008 test project

    - by sukumar
    Hi all I have the situation as follows I have develpoed one test project in visual studio 2008 to test my target project. I was getting the following exception when i ran test case in my PC System.IO.FileNotFoundException: The specified module could not be found. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007007E) at System.Reflection.Assembly._nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(AssemblyName assemblyRef, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoadFrom(String assemblyFile, Evidence securityEvidence, Byte[] hashValue, AssemblyHashAlgorithm hashAlgorithm, Boolean forIntrospection, StackCrawlMark& stackMark) at System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFrom(String assemblyFile) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestTypes.Unit.UnitTestExecuter.GetType(UnitTestElement unitTest, String type) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestTypes.Unit.UnitTestExecuter.ResolveMethods(). but the same project runs successfully in my colleague PC. as per my Understanding System.IO.FileNotFoundException will occur in case of missing out the dlls. i checked up with dependency walker to trace out the missed dll.dependency walke traced out the following dlls 1)MFC90D.dll 2)mSvcr90d.dll 3)msvcp90d.dll i copied this dlls to C:\windows\system32 from Microsoft visual studio 9.0 dir and again i ran the dependency walker.this time dependency walker is able to open the given testproject dll with 0 errors .even then the same exception comes up when i ran the test. i got fed up with this. can any one tell why it is behaving as PC dependent.is there any thing that i still missing? any suggestion can be helpfull Thakns in Advance Sukumar i

    Read the article

  • TFS build problem: missing assembly in test output folder

    - by Herman
    Hi all, I am trying to integrate unit test cases with a TFS build in our new solution. I've include the following configuration line in my TFSBuild.proj <ItemGroup> <TestContainer Include="$(OutDir)\%2aTest.dll" /> </ItemGroup> Which I think is the correct configuration since I only have 1 test project. However, when I do this, some dll is missing in the output folder of the test case, hence failing most of my test case. Has anyone run into this problem before? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Running PHP Zend Test in Eclipse

    - by Carlos Eiroa
    Is it possible to run PHP Zend test cases (those that extend Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase, etc.) through Eclipse PDT? I would like to be able to run them in a similar fashion as you run JUnit tests in Eclipse, by right-clicking the test file and selecting "Run as a JUnit test case." I'd love to see the green or red bar instead of having to go to the command line :). Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • SQL server peformance, virtual memory usage

    - by user45641
    Hello, I have a very large DB used mostly for analytics. The performance overall is very sluggish. I just noticed that when running the query below, the amount of virtual memory used greatly exceeds the amount of physical memory available. Currently, physical memory is 10GB (10238 MB) whereas the virtual memory returns significantly more - 8388607 MB. That seems really wrong, but I'm at a bit of a loss on how to proceed. USE [master]; GO select cpu_count , hyperthread_ratio , physical_memory_in_bytes / 1048576 as 'mem_MB' , virtual_memory_in_bytes / 1048576 as 'virtual_mem_MB' , max_workers_count , os_error_mode , os_priority_class from sys.dm_os_sys_info

    Read the article

  • Benchmarking Java programs

    - by stefan-ock
    For university, I perform bytecode modifications and analyze their influence on performance of Java programs. Therefore, I need Java programs---in best case used in production---and appropriate benchmarks. For instance, I already got HyperSQL and measure its performance by the benchmark program PolePosition. The Java programs running on a JVM without JIT compiler. Thanks for your help! P.S.: I cannot use programs to benchmark the performance of the JVM or of the Java language itself (such as Wide Finder).

    Read the article

  • How to create TestContext for Spring Test?

    - by HDave
    Newcomer to Spring here, so pardon me if this is a stupid question. I have a relatively small Java library that implements a few dozen beans (no database or GUI). I have created a Spring Bean configuration file that other Java projects use to inject my beans into their stuff. I am now for the first time trying to use Spring Test to inject some of these beans into my junit test classes (rather than simply instantiating them). I am doing this partly to learn Spring Test and partly to force the tests to use the same bean configuration file I provide for others. In the Spring documentation is says I need to create an application context using the "TestContext" class that comes with Spring. I believe this should be done in a spring XML file that I reference via the @ContextConfiguration annotation on my test class. @ContextConfiguration({"/test-applicationContext.xml"}) However, there is no hint as to what to put in the file! When I go to run my tests from within Eclipse it errors out saying "failed to load Application Context"....of course.

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio and TFS for Test manager

    - by bisjom
    Hi I have Visual Studio test manager installed in my machine, I have TFS Server installed on another server, I want to connect to that TFS server with new VS 2010. Do I need to install the Visual studio 2010 full version or just the test manager? I installed test manager and its asking a URL to add and I added the one we already have , but its not connecting to that site. Do I need to isntall Full version and TFS on same machine?? Please help Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does new JUnit 4.8 @Category render test suites almost obsolete?

    - by grigory
    Given question 'How to run all tests belonging to a certain Category?' and the answer would the following approach be better for test organization? define master test suite that contains all tests (e.g. using ClasspathSuite) design sufficient set of JUnit categories (sufficient means that every desirable collection of sets is identifiable using one or more categories) define targeted test suites based on master test suite and set of categories For example: identify categories for speed (slow, fast), dependencies (mock, database, integration), function (), domain ( demand that each test is properly qualified (tagged) with relevant set of categories. create master test suite using ClasspathSuite (all tests found in classpath) create targeted suites by qualifying master test suite with categories, e.g. mock test suite, fast database test suite, slow integration for domain X test suite, etc. My question is more like soliciting approval rate for such approach vs. classic test suite approach. One unbeatable benefit is that every new test is immediately contained by relevant suites with no suite maintenance. One concern is proper categorization of each test.

    Read the article

  • Can compressing Program Files save space *and* give a significant boost to SSD performance?

    - by Christopher Galpin
    Considering solid-state disk space is still an expensive resource, compressing large folders has appeal. Thanks to VirtualStore, could Program Files be a case where it might even improve performance? Discovery In particular I have been reading: SSD and NTFS Compression Speed Increase? Does NTFS compression slow SSD/flash performance? Will somebody benchmark whole disk compression (HD,SSD) please? (may have to scroll up) The first link is particularly dreamy, but maybe head a little too far in the clouds. The third link has this sexy semi-log graph (logarithmic scale!). Quote (with notes): Using highly compressable data (IOmeter), you get at most a 30x performance increase [for reads], and at least a 49x performance DECREASE [for writes]. Assuming I interpreted and clarified that sentence correctly, this single user's benchmark has me incredibly interested. Although write performance tanks wretchedly, read performance still soars. It gave me an idea. Idea: VirtualStore It so happens that thanks to sanity saving security features introduced in Windows Vista, write access to certain folders such as Program Files is virtualized for non-administrator processes. Which means, in normal (non-elevated) usage, a program or game's attempt to write data to its install location in Program Files (which is perhaps a poor location) is redirected to %UserProfile%\AppData\Local\VirtualStore, somewhere entirely different. Thus, to my understanding, writes to Program Files should primarily only occur when installing an application. This makes compressing it not only a huge source of space gain, but also a potential candidate for performance gain. Testing The beginning of this post has me a bit timid, it suggests benchmarking NTFS compression on a whole drive is difficult because turning it off "doesn't decompress the objects". However it seems to me the compact command is perfectly capable of doing so for both drives and individual folders. Could it be only marking them for decompression the next time the OS reads from them? I need to find the answer before I begin my own testing.

    Read the article

  • <100% Test coverage - best practices in selecting test areas

    - by Paul Nathan
    Suppose you're working on a project and the time/money budget does not allow 100% coverage of all code/paths. It then follows that some critical subset of your code needs to be tested. Clearly a 'gut-check' approach can be used to test the system, where intuition and manual analysis can produce some sort of test coverage that will be 'ok'. However, I'm presuming that there are best practices/approaches/processes that identify critical elements up to some threshold and let you focus your test elements on those blocks. For example, one popular process for identifying failures in manufacturing is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. I'm looking for a process(es) to identify critical testing blocks in software.

    Read the article

  • Only run selenium test if previous selenium test fails

    - by Mike Grace
    I have several 'it' blocks in my selenium test file (using Ruby and rspec) that test various portions of my web application. Each 'it' block stops executing and goes to the next 'it' block if any of the conditions or code fails. Is there a way to run an 'it' block only if the previous fails or call a function to react to the failed test? Is there a better way to accomplish what I am wanting to do that doesn't involve an 'it' block? Example 'it' block it "should load example.com" do page.open("http://example.com") page.wait_for_page_to_load(25) end

    Read the article

  • Performance question: Inverting an array of pointers in-place vs array of values

    - by Anders
    The background for asking this question is that I am solving a linearized equation system (Ax=b), where A is a matrix (typically of dimension less than 100x100) and x and b are vectors. I am using a direct method, meaning that I first invert A, then find the solution by x=A^(-1)b. This step is repated in an iterative process until convergence. The way I'm doing it now, using a matrix library (MTL4): For every iteration I copy all coeffiecients of A (values) in to the matrix object, then invert. This the easiest and safest option. Using an array of pointers instead: For my particular case, the coefficients of A happen to be updated between each iteration. These coefficients are stored in different variables (some are arrays, some are not). Would there be a potential for performance gain if I set up A as an array containing pointers to these coefficient variables, then inverting A in-place? The nice thing about the last option is that once I have set up the pointers in A before the first iteration, I would not need to copy any values between successive iterations. The values which are pointed to in A would automatically be updated between iterations. So the performance question boils down to this, as I see it: - The matrix inversion process takes roughly the same amount of time, assuming de-referencing of pointers is non-expensive. - The array of pointers does not need the extra memory for matrix A containing values. - The array of pointers option does not have to copy all NxN values of A between each iteration. - The values that are pointed to the array of pointers option are generally NOT ordered in memory. Hopefully, all values lie relatively close in memory, but *A[0][1] is generally not next to *A[0][0] etc. Any comments to this? Will the last remark affect performance negatively, thus weighing up for the positive performance effects?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >