• No results found

SP Apps Performance test Test report. 2012/10 Mai Au

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "SP Apps Performance test Test report. 2012/10 Mai Au"

Copied!
14
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

SP Apps 1.1.4 Performance test

Test report

2012/10 Mai Au

(2)

SP Apps 1.1.0 Performance test ... 1

Test report ... 1

1. Purpose ... 3

2. Performance criteria ... 3

3. Environments used for performance testing ... 3

3.1. SP Apps servers ... 3

3.1.1 3 FEW (FrontEndWeb) servers ... 4

3.1.2 DB server ... 4

3.1.3 AD server, virtual machine ... 4

3.2. Tool for load testing ... 4

4. Verification data ... 4

5. Scenario ... 5

5.1. Scenario and script ... 5

5.2. Environment for running the scenario... 6

6. Result... 7

6.1. Result of ScaleBench ... 7

6.1.1. Usable user quantity ... 7

6.2. Analyzing server resource ... 8

6.2.1. Memory ... 8

6.2.2. Processor ... 11

6.2.3. Hard disk ... 13

(3)

1. Purpose

This performance test is to confirm the 3 following points in SP Apps 1.1.4. (1) Maximum user amount

(2) Consumed server resource at peak time (3) Comparing with SP Apps1.1.0

2. Performance criteria (1) Respond in 7 seconds

Response must be within 7 seconds since a request is sent

We consider the number of usage user when so many responses cannot be returned within 7 seconds the maximum user amount.

Because SP Apps operates on SharePoint 2010, we plus α to the 4 second rule and decides as 7 seconds.

(2)The rule of 50% usage ratio

It’s irrational that all registered users use SP Apps frequently, so we assume that 50% of the number of users sends 1 request/minute.

3. Environments used for performance testing 3.1. SP Apps servers

We performed the test on a system consisted of 2 FEW (Front End Web) servers, 1 DB server, 1 Active Directory.

We used the NLB (Windows Network Load Balancing Services) of Windows to cluster 2 FEW servers. Its settings are as follows:

Host properties

Cluster parameter Cluster manipulating mode Multicast

Port rule Port range Start: 0

Stop : 65535

Protocol TCP

Filter mode Multihost

Affinity:None

We must use None for Affinity because the requester must be from 1 same IP in Performance testing. ※Please refer to the URL for more details

(4)

3.1.1 2 FEW (Front End Web) servers

OS Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition (x64) CPU

Intel® Xeon® CPU L5530 @ 2.40 GHz (2 プロセッサ)

Memory 48 GB

3.1.2 DB server

OS Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition (x64) CPU

Intel® Xeon® CPU L5530 @ 2.39 GHz (2 プロセッサ)

Memory 48 GB

3.1.3 AD server, virtual machine

OS Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition (x64) CPU

Intel® Xeon® CPU L5530 @ 2.39 GHz (2 プロセッサ)

Memory 8.0 GB

3.2. Tool for load testing

Load testing tool Cybozu Scale Bench 1.1.0

OS Cent OS release 5.4

CPU Intel® Core™ i7-860 Processor @ 2.80GHz

Memory 6.00GB

4. Verification data

We used the following data for testing:

We used the tool to create application data. This tool was created by PG.

We assumed that we needed the data quantity accumulated on SPApps of 1000 users in 1 year. We assumed that there are 20 working days in a month, 8 hours a day.

User 1000 users

Department site Quantity of Site 10 sites

Discussion

Private Discussion: 600 items/1site 600*10 = 6000 items Public Discussion: 600 items/1site 600*10 = 6000 items

Scheduler 11 items/1site 11*10 = 110 items

(5)

Discussion

Private Discussion: 120 items/1site 120*50 = 1200 items

Public Discussion: 120 items/1site 120*50 = 1200 items

Scheduler 3 items/1site 3*50 = 150 items

Data amount in 1 year

Scheduler list (11*10 + 3*50)*365*5/7 = 67786

Discussion list 600*10 + 600*10 + 120*50 + 120*50 = 24000

5. Scenario

5.1. Scenario and script

We used the following scenario:

Script name Content Execution ratio

SP Apps_read 1. Login

2. Move to Top page of a site

3. Move to the Top page of Discussion 4. Click Discussion tag

5. Select any tag

6. Move to the Top page of Discussion 7. Click the Discussion tag

8. Select any item from the list 9. Move to the top page of the site 10. Move to the Top page of Scheduler 11. Open the Week view

12. Select any item from the list 13. Log out

72%

SP Apps_write 1. Log in

2. Move to Top page of a site

3. Move to the Top page of Discussion 4. Move to the [Add new] page of Discussion 5. Add a Discussion

6. Move to the Top page of Discussion 7. Move to the [Add new] page of Discussion 8. Add a Discussion

9. Move to the Top page of Scheduler 10. Move to the [Add new] page of Scheduler 11. Add an event

12. Log out

16%

(6)

2. Move to Top page of a site

3. Move to the Top page of Discussion 4. Click Discussion tag

5. Select any item from the list displayed 6. Post a comment to that Discussion 7. Move to the Top page of Discussion 8. Click Discussion tag

9. Select any item from the list displayed 10. Post a comment to that Discussion 11. Move to the Top page of Scheduler 12. Open the Week view

13. Select any item from the list displayed 14. Post a comment to that event

15. Log out

These scenario and scripts are saved in the following location: ScaleBench Script used for SP Apps1.1.4 performance test

http://svn.dev.cybozu.co.jp/svn/qa/SPApps/orion/patch/1.1.4/scenario/

5.2. Environment for running the scenario As follows

grinder.properties

grinder.threads (VU quantity for each server) 1000 grinder.duration (Duration of performance test (milisec)) 2400000 scalebench.properties

scalebench.wait_mean (Average think time (milisec)) 60000 scalebench.wait_range (Difference of think time (milisec)) 30000 scalebench.peak_at (The percentage of duration at which

VU quantity becomes maximum) 0.8

Access user:

500 users access into 10 Department sites 500 users access into 50 Project sites

(7)

6. Result

6.1. Result of ScaleBench 6.1.1. Usable user quantity

As follows

Pattern VU quantity by the time

the average response time exceeds 7 seconds

Usable user quantity

SP Apps 1.1.0 293 586

SP Apps 1.1.4 1000 2000

The usable user quantity in SPApps1.1.4 is 2000 users. ・SP Apps 1.1.4(1000VU)

Although there are 2 operations (create private discussion and post comment for public discussion) has response time over 7s, PG had investigated but he didn’t found any part can be tweaked more.

(8)

6.2. Analyzing server resource

I used the Performance Counter of Windows on the verification server to output the server resource each 5 seconds. The output targets are as below:

Object Counter Content Bottleneck and scale

for judgment

Memory Available Bytes Usable memory capacity Below 5% of entire memory

Pages/sec The number of Paging in each second

Over 1000 Processor(_Total) % Processor

Time

The percentage of non-idle time of processor

Over 85% % User Time The percentage of the user process

running time of processor

% Idle Time The percentage of idle of time of processor

Physical Disk % Disk Time The percentage of the time when disk is being read or written

Over 80% Avg. Disk

Queue Length

The unprocessed request quantity waiting for disk writing and reading to finish

Over spindle amount × 2

System Processor Queue Length

The waiting thread quantity in processor

Over CPU quantity × 2

Reference: Windows Management : Observing server performance- Microsoft TechNet

http://207.46.16.252/ja-jp/magazine/2008.08.pulse.aspx

Because there was little difference in the resource usage of 2 FEW servers, I explained only one of them.

6.2.1. Memory

The usable memory capacity is as below:

After 32 minutes, which is the peak time of SP Apps, there was no big fluctuation in memory usage amount in FEW servers and DB server.

(9)

・SP Apps 1.1.4_1000VU (1 FEW server)

(10)

Here is the paging quantity in each second:

Although there was a sudden rise in paging quantity, there was no excess paging that could cause memory’s bottleneck.

・SP Apps 1.1.4_1000VU (1 FEW server )

(11)

6.2.2. Processor

After 32 minutes, which is the peak time of SP Apps, the processor of DB server and Web server has a percentage of usage time about 50%. Bottleneck is not happened at DB and Web servers

・SP Apps 1.1.4_1000VU (1 FEW server)

(12)

Here is the thread quantity that was waiting for process in processor.

Although there was a sudden rise, this CPU bottleneck state didn’t last long. ・SP Apps 1.1.4_1000VU (1 FEW SERVER)

(13)

6.2.3. Hard disk

Here is the percentage of disk usage time. Although there was a sudden rise, the time was not long enough to cause bottleneck.

・SP Apps 1.1.4_1000VU (1 FEW SERVER)

(14)

7. Conclusion

(1) Maximum user amount

The usable user quantity of SP Apps 1.1.4 is 2000. (2) Consumed server resource at peak time

Object Counter Consumed resource at peak time

DB server Web server

Memory Available Bytes 14.6% of entire

memory

8.3% of entire memory

Pages/sec 0 28.7

Processor(_Total) % Processor Time < 40% ~ 48%

% User Time ~ 20% ~ 43%

% Idle Time ~ 60% ~ 52%

Physical Disk % Disk Time < 5% < 5%

Avg. Disk Queue Length

System Processor Queue Length < 5 < 5

(3) Comparing with SP Apps1.1.0

Pattern VU quantity by the time

the average response time exceeds 7 seconds

Usable user quantity

SP Apps 1.1.0 293 586

References

Related documents

Furthermore, while symbolic execution systems often avoid reasoning precisely about symbolic memory accesses (e.g., access- ing a symbolic offset in an array), C OMMUTER ’s test

Raul Gimenez, Gabriel Baqcuier, Ghena Dimitrova, Yvonne Minton, Kurt Widmer, Dunja Vejzovic. Leoncavallo) Skull of Yorick Productions/ War Museum of Thessaloniki. Verdi)

Significant, positive coefficients denote that the respective sector (commercial banking, investment banking, life insurance or property-casualty insurance) experienced

The Effects of Customer Satisfaction and Switching Barrier on Customer Loyalty in Korean Mobile Telecommunication Services. Telecommunication Policy,

This Malaysian Standard deals with the safety of electric storage water heaters for household and similar purposes and intended for heating water below boiling temperature, their

The information published is compiled from several sources that include local Maritime Associations, Pilot Logs, Terminal Line-Ups, EIA Data, US Customs, Port and Trade

- 4 - Single/Multiple Hotel Nights System based Timeshare Clubs Ownership based Timeshare Clubs Private Residence Clubs Exclusive use Second home Ownership.. INTEREST IN LEISURE

The search for the best values of delays and neurons is done using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and a Genetic Algorithm (GA) as they are powerful heuristic search