Re: Feature comparision among some software tools for load testing.

[Adrian Speteanu <as...@gmail.com>]

Last time I checked, the license fee for LoadRunner was proportional to the
number of simulated users. I have use-cases of having more than 20k
simultaneous users, which means keeping at least 40k threads (VU) to ensure
that at least 20k are active for sure, not waiting for application to
respond. It might be difficult to evaluate LoadRunner in certain
circumstances for practical means.

I agree that the paper has too many shortcomings to be even considered -
without wanting to minimise the effort of those people, any serious analysis
has to take in consideration the specifics. Just an example how they expect
to evaluate hardware requirements without evaluating an actual use case that
can be implemented on all/most tools analysed?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Shay Ginsbourg <sg...@gmail.com>wrote:

> LoadRunner is the best software for performance testing ever created, being
> the industry standard.
>
> Not including it in a 'research' turns that paper (amongst other
> shortcomings) into rather a bad joke.
>
> Shay Ginsbourg
> Formerly QA Manager of LoadRunner at Mercury Interactive
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Anecito [mailto:adanecito@yahoo.com]
> Sent: יום א 11 ספטמבר 2011 02:07
> To: JMeter Users List
> Subject: Re: Feature comparision among some software tools for load
> testing.
>
> Thanks for the paper.
>
> I am surprised that HP Performance Center or Loadrunner was not mentioned.
> That is considered the top tool for performance testing. I have used both
> for years and have participated in evaluations using Forester and Gartener
> and it is the best comercial tool.
>
> Also, we just started using version 11 of Performace Center and the
> truclient protocol does seem to be solving the problem with AJAX emulation
> something critical for performance testing.
>
> The list of protocols supported in these tools is critical for big
> companies and having the right people use them more so.
>
> Regards,
> -Tony
>
> --- On Sat, 9/10/11, Oscar Eduardo Cala Wilches <os...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Oscar Eduardo Cala Wilches <os...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Feature comparision among some software tools for load testing.
> > To: jmeter-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > Date: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 3:02 PM
> > Hi every body.
> >
> > Recently a paper was published at Universidad Nacional de
> > Colombia (
> > http://www.unal.edu.co). The article's title is:
> >
> > Feature comparision among some software tools for load
> > testing.
> >
> > The paper can be downloaded from
> >
> http://intranet.minas.medellin.unal.edu.co/~pruebasminas/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1901&Itemid=285
> >
> > It was published under the "Avances en Sistemas e
> > Informática" Journal.
> >
> > The paper describes a rankin system created by the authors
> > in order to
> > qualify different load testing tools.
> >
> > JMeter did obtain a great score and was the best ranked
> > Open Source Tool.
> > Its score was very close compared with the score reached by
> > privative
> > tools.
> >
> > It is a very good result for JMeter, so I want to share it
> > with you.
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > --
> > ATT.
> > Oscar Eduardo Cala W.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>