Comments on: Performance Testing with Apdex http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/ Performance and Test Automation Experts Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:10:48 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Tim http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-272 Tim Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:05:51 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-272 Not sure this was a discussion on NFRs Shrini. I also mentioned a response time target is 'often' specified as a NFR. Subtext might read 'amongst others'. Of course there are many things which might classify a non-functional requirement, but let's not hang ourselves on syntax here. The discussion if any should be focused on the use of Apdex instead. Not sure this was a discussion on NFRs Shrini.

I also mentioned a response time target is ‘often’ specified as a NFR. Subtext might read ‘amongst others’. Of course there are many things which might classify a non-functional requirement, but let’s not hang ourselves on syntax here. The discussion if any should be focused on the use of Apdex instead.

]]> By: Shrini Kulkarni http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-271 Shrini Kulkarni Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:02:17 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-271 >>>> ...of all my samples have a response time below 5 seconds. This is often specified as a Non Functional Requirement (NFR). Incorrect !!!! NFR is an umbrella term used to refer any non functional requirement (not necessarily performance requirmeent). NFR would include stuff like security, usability, interoperability ... basically anything that is non functional. What is functional to an application is very specific to the application itself. Will performance be a NFR for a tool like LoadRunner (where performance is a fuctional requirement for it). While agree, in general everything mentioned in this post ... I suspect by equating(saying it is often specified) performance to NFR would amount to a simplification which is not valid Shrini >>>> …of all my samples have a response time below 5 seconds. This is often specified as a Non Functional Requirement (NFR).

Incorrect !!!! NFR is an umbrella term used to refer any non functional requirement (not necessarily performance requirmeent). NFR would include stuff like security, usability, interoperability … basically anything that is non functional. What is functional to an application is very specific to the application itself. Will performance be a NFR for a tool like LoadRunner (where performance is a fuctional requirement for it).

While agree, in general everything mentioned in this post … I suspect by equating(saying it is often specified) performance to NFR would amount to a simplification which is not valid

Shrini

]]> By: Dave http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-270 Dave Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:33:13 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-270 I assume you'd have to take the application level from your requirements and then use the apdex score to rate the transactions within. I assume it will be a good way to track transactions over time, and get an idea on how much better/worse the transaction is getting. I suppose you could take the same approach as apdex, and measure how many transactions passed or nearly passed and then use that data to rate the application. I assume you’d have to take the application level from your requirements and then use the apdex score to rate the transactions within.

I assume it will be a good way to track transactions over time, and get an idea on how much better/worse the transaction is getting.

I suppose you could take the same approach as apdex, and measure how many transactions passed or nearly passed and then use that data to rate the application.

]]> By: Tim http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-269 Tim Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:13:31 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-269 Yes, you could zoom out on granularity so to speak, and create it at the script level. Although this depends on how you write your scripts. I normally write multi-action scripts, so an apdex score across multiple transactions may not be as meaningful. I think you've also touched on a question I've had with apdex, which is how do you aggregate (or average) scores, to go from transaction level up to application or system level. I'm not sure it's wise to try and aggregate the apdex score... Yes, you could zoom out on granularity so to speak, and create it at the script level. Although this depends on how you write your scripts. I normally write multi-action scripts, so an apdex score across multiple transactions may not be as meaningful.

I think you’ve also touched on a question I’ve had with apdex, which is how do you aggregate (or average) scores, to go from transaction level up to application or system level. I’m not sure it’s wise to try and aggregate the apdex score…

]]> By: Dave http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-268 Dave Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:13:24 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-268 Very nice idea/concept that I can see being very useful showing people in the real world. The next level of granularity I suppose would be to not break it down to transaction level, but to script level to show the scripts counter. Then taking it one level further to show the applications rating. Any thoughts on this? Very nice idea/concept that I can see being very useful showing people in the real world. The next level of granularity I suppose would be to not break it down to transaction level, but to script level to show the scripts counter. Then taking it one level further to show the applications rating.
Any thoughts on this?

]]> By: Chris R http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-267 Chris R Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:13:30 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-267 excellent stuff, very useful info ! excellent stuff, very useful info !

]]> By: Jose http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-266 Jose Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:29:30 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-266 Thanks Tim!!! Thanks Tim!!!

]]> By: Tim http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-265 Tim Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:12:31 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-265 Correct Jose. As long as those columns line up you should be fine. Correct Jose. As long as those columns line up you should be fine.

]]> By: Jose http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-264 Jose Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:19:45 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-264 Hi Tim, Excellent blog entry, It's very helpful. Just to be sure, if I use the results of Jmeter (instead of LoadRunner); Is correct replacing trans_name by label and trans_resp_time by average? Thanks in advance!! Jose Hi Tim,

Excellent blog entry, It’s very helpful. Just to be sure, if I use the results of Jmeter (instead of LoadRunner); Is correct replacing trans_name by label and trans_resp_time
by average?

Thanks in advance!!

Jose

]]> By: Sameh http://altentee.com/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Sameh Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:22:02 +0000 http://90kts.com/blog/2008/performance-testing-with-apdex/#comment-263 Thanks for that Tim. Highly useful and informative. Thanks for that Tim. Highly useful and informative.

]]>