(r14) CLMDCCPerformanceReport50 < Deployment

Engineering Lifecycle Management Wiki - Deployment
Community information and contribution guidelines
~~EditAttach~~Printable
TWiki > Deployment Web > DeploymentPlanningAndDesign > PerformanceDatasheetsAndSizingGuidelines > CLMETLPerformanceReport406 > CLMDCCPerformanceReport50
Revision 14 - 2014-05-13 - 07:06:39 - Main.wangpp
<div id="header-title" style="padding: 10px 15px; border-width:1px; border-style:solid; border-color:#FFD28C; background-image: url(<nop>https://jazz.net/wiki/pub/Deployment/WebPreferences/TLASE.jpg); background-size: cover; font-size:120%">
<!--
   * Set ALLOWTOPICCHANGE = Main.TWikiDeploymentDatasheetsAuthorsGroup, Main.TWikiAdminGroup, Main.GrantCovell 
-->
---+!! <img src="https://jazz.net/wiki/pub/Deployment/WebPreferences/new.png" alt="new.png" width="50" height="50" align="right">Collaborative Lifecycle Management performance report: Data Collection Component Performance(DCC) 5.0 release</br>
%DKGRAY% Authors: [[Main.PengPengWang][Peng Peng Wang]]</br>
Last updated: May 13th, 2014</br>
Build basis: CLM 5.0
%ENDCOLOR%</div></sticky>

<!-- Page contents top of page on right hand side in box -->
<sticky><div style="float:right; border-width:1px; border-style:solid; border-color:#DFDFDF; background-color:#F6F6F6; margin:0 0 15px 15px; padding: 0 15px 0 15px;">
%TOC{title="Page contents"}%
</div></sticky>

<sticky><div style="margin:15px;"></sticky>

---++ Introduction

This article presents the results of Data Collection Component (DCC) performance testing for the Rational solution for Collaborative Lifecycle Managment (CLM) release.  The DCC is introduced in 5.0 release, in order to provide a solution to solve the current problems of ETL. The DCC can help to improve the performance of the DM and JAVA ETL by optimizing round tips to datasource and using the concurrent processing to fetch data. The DCC also improved the utilization of the system resources of the server. This article will show the performance benchmark of the DCC testing and also provide the comparison with JAVA ETL and DM ETL.

---+++!! Disclaimer

%INCLUDE{"PerformanceDatasheetDisclaimer"}%

---++Methodology

The testing is based on 3 CLM repositories with same data volume, which are generated using data population tool. And use DCC server, Data Manager tool client and CLM JAVA ETL component to load the data into data warehouse. The testing run the JAVA,DM and DCC ETL based on one CLM repository, in order to get the performance comparison of DCC compared with JAVA and DM ETL. And also run the DCC ETL based on 3 CLM repositories , in order to get the performance comparison of DCC with JAVA, DM ETL and DCC based on 3 CLM repositories.

---++ Findings
---+++ Performance goals

   * Make comparison of performance with DCC, JAVA and DM ETL based on one CLM repository. 

   * Make comparison of the performance with DCC, JAVA and DM ETL based on 3 CLM repositories concurrently.

---+++ Findings

   * The DCC has two major improvements on : 

      * Compared with JAVA and DM ETL loading apps in sequence, DCC ETL load the applications in parallel. The total duration of DCC depends on the slowest app data loading. The performance of DCC must be improved compared with the JAVA/DM ETL loading in sequence.

      * For specific application data loading, DCC ETL does optimization by merging the same REST service to reduce the number of requests sending to CLM Server. DCC is optimized to find the REST requests with the same relative URL path and merge them together. Then send REST request once to get the data that JAVA/DM ETL fetch by sending many REST requests.  So, for specific application, DCC ETL also have a performance improvement.

   *  Against <b>One </b> CLM Repository of Performance test data, DCC ETL has better performance than JAVA and DM ETL. For the specific ETL job (CCM,QM, RM and star job), the DCC has better performance than JAVA and DM ETL does. Because DCC merges some REST requests, the ETL job only send less the REST requests than JAVA and DM ETL does. For the details, please refer to the *[[#Results][Results]]*.   For the total duration of one repository (The duration time of ETL complete the JFS,QM,RRC,RTC and star jobs), DCC has more siginificant improvement thant JAVA and DM ETL. Because DCC run the ETL jobs concurrently, the total duration is the maximum time among the ETL jobs. But the JAVA and DM ETL run the ETL jobs in sequence. For the detail comparison data, please refer to *[[#Results][Results]]*

   * Against <b>Three </b> CLM Repositories of Performance test data (The 3 CLM repository has same data volume and on the deployoment with same configuration), DCC ETL show huge performance improvement along with multiple CLM Repositories to be loaded. Because DCC provides the capability to load the data from multiple CLM repositories concurrently. For the detail comparison data, please refer to *[[#Results][Results]]*

---++ Topology

The topology under test is based on [[https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Deployment/RecommendedCLMDeploymentTopologies#CLM_E1_Enterprise_Distributed_Li][Standard Topology (E1) Enterprise - Distributed / Linux / DB2.]]

<img src="https://jazz.net/wiki/pub/Deployment/CLMDCCPerformanceReport50/DCC_Performance_Test_Topology.png" alt="Server Overview" width="70%" height="70%" />

The specifications of machines under test are listed in the table below. Server tuning details are listed in *[[#AppendixA][Appendix A]]*

Test data was generated using automation. The test environment for the latest release was upgraded from the earlier one by using the CLM upgrade process. Please see the system configuration in the under table.
And refer to the server tuning details listed in *[[#AppendixA][Appendix A]]*

IBM Tivoli Directory Server was used for managing user authentication.

<table class="gray-table">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<th valign="top">Function</th>
			<th valign="top">Number of Machines</th>
			<th valign="top">Machine Type</th>
			<th valign="top">CPU / Machine</th>
			<th valign="top">Total # of CPU Cores/Machine</th>
			<th valign="top">Memory/Machine</th>
			<th valign="top">Disk</th>
			<th valign="top">Disk capacity</th>
			<th valign="top">Network interface</th>
			<th valign="top">OS and Version</th>
		</tr>
			<tr>
			<td>ESX Server</td>
			<td>2</td>
			<td>IBM X3550 M3 7944J2A </td>
			<td>1 x Intel Xeon E5-2640 2.5 GHz (six-core)</td>
			<td>12 vCPU</td>
			<td>48GB</td>
			<td>RAID0 SAS x3 300G 10k rpm </td>
			<td>900G</td>
			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			<td>ESXi5.1 </td>
		</tr>
	          <tr>
			 <td>ESX Server2</td>
			<td>1</td>
			<td>IBM X3650 M3 </td>
			<td>2 x Intel Xeon x5680 3.3GHz (six-core)</td>
			<td>24 vCPU</td>
			<td>191GB</td>
			 <td>RAID5 SAS x8 300G 10k rpm </td>
			<td>2T</td>
			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			 <td>ESXi5.1 </td>
		</tr>
	          <tr>
			 <td>ESX Server3</td>
			<td>1</td>
			<td>IBM X3650 M4 </td>
			<td>2 x Intel Xeon x5680 3.3GHz (12-core)</td>
			<td>48 vCPU</td>
			<td>196GB</td>
			 <td>RAID5 SAS x8 900G 10k rpm </td>
			<td>5.7T</td>
			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			 <td>ESXi5.1 </td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>JTS/RM Server</td>
			 <td>3</td>
			 <td>VM on IBM System x3550 M3</td>
 			<td></td>
 			<td>4 vCPU</td>
			 <td>16GB</td>
			 <td> </td>
			 <td>120G</td>
			 <td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			 <td>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 </td>
		 </tr>
		<tr>
			<td>CLM Database Server</td>
			 <td>3</td>
 			<td>VM on IBM System x3650 M3</td>
			 <td></td>
		 	<td>4 vCPU</td>
		 	<td>16GB</td>
			 <td> </td>
			 <td>120G</td>
			 <td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			 <td>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 </td>
		 </tr>             
		<tr>
			<td>CCM Server</td>
			<td>3</td>
 			<td>VM on IBM System x3550 M3</td>
			<td></td>
			<td>4 vCPU</td>
			<td>16GB</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td>120G</td>
			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			<td>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 </td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>QM Server</td>
			<td>3</td>
			<td>VM on IBM System x3550 M3</td>
			<td></td>
			<td>4 vCPU</td>
			<td>16GB</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td>120G</td>
			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			<td>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 </td>
		</tr>
 <tr>
			 <td>CLM DCC Server</td>
			 <td>1</td>
			 <td>VM on IBM System x3650 M4</td>
			 <td></td>
			 <td>16 vCPU</td>
			 <td>16GB</td>
			 <td></td>
 			<td>120G</td>
 			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
 			<td>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2</td>
                  </tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Data Warehouse Server</td>
			<td>1</td>
			<td>VM on IBM System x3650 M3</td>
			<td></td>
			<td>4 vCPU</td>
			<td>16GB</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td>120G</td>
			<td>Gigabit Ethernet</td>
			<td>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 </td>
		</tr>		
	</tbody>
</table>

---+++Data volume and shape

The data volume listed in *[[#AppendixB][Appendix B]]*

---+++Network connectivity

All server machines and test clients are located on the same subnet. The LAN has 1000 Mbps of maximum bandwidth and less than 0.3 ms latency in ping.

---++Results

---+++ ETL Comparison of DCC\JAVA\DM based on one CLM repository

This part is target to get the performance gain of DCC ETL compared with JAVA ETL and DM ETL based on one CLM repository. Before CLM 5.0, CLM provided JAVA ETL to load the CLM data from the applications one by one who registered on the JTS server.  One typical CLM deployment has one JTS, CCM, QM and RM application registered on the JTS. The JAVA ETL will load the data in sequence with following apps: JTS, CCM,QM, RM and Star. The total duration is the sum of ETL duration of all applications. So does DM ETL. DCC provide the capability to load the applications data parallelly. So the total duration is the slowest duration among the ETLs of specific applications.
    
The chart shown the performance gain of DCC compared with JAVA and DM ETL based on one CLM repository. The DCC has two major improvements on :
 
    1. DCC performance has a significant improvement per the comarison of JAVA and DCC ETL, based on performance test data. The duration reduced from 48 hours to 16 hours. And for the duration of specific applications, the DCC also has a significant improvement. Improved about 30% on QM loading, 20% on RM loading, 60% on CCM loading and 90% on Star job.

    2. DCC duration also has a significant improvement per the comarison of DM and DCC ETL, based on performance test data. The duration reduced from 139 hours to 16 hours.  The major improvements are the RRC ETL and RQM ETL. RQM loading improved about 60% and RRC loading improved about 85%. 

     <img src="%ATTACHURLPATH%/ETL_Comparison_DCCJAVADM_One_Repo.png" alt="ETL_Comparison_DCCJAVADM_One_Repo.png" width="780" height="406" />

     Row 1. DCC : The DCC load the CLM apps data concurrently based on one CLM repository.
    
     Row 2. JAVA : JAVA ETL load the CLM apps data sequently based on one CLM repository.

     Row 3. DM : DM ETL load the CLM apps data sequently based on one CLM repository.

   * Precondition: CCM ETL has one build named as Workitembaseline which records the latest info of each workitem by getting the latest workitem history record. When the workitembaseline ETL build is running, the ETL gets the latest info (status, state, priority, severity, etc.) by requesting the latest WI history with the query condition that the change time of the WI history is earlier than the ETL build start time. If there is no ETL schedule one day, the latest info of each workitem on that day are not loaded in the worktiembaseline table of DW. JAVA ETL will fill the WI latest info on the days that have no ETL running. For example, if there is no JAVA ETL run on Jan 1st, the workitemBaseline table won't have chance to load the workitem latest info into DW. However, the next JAVA ETL run on Jan 2nd will insert the missing data on Jan 1st. The performance team always uses the same data set to do the ETL performance so that the performance results are comparable. This feature will cause the ETL get more workitembaseline data for the JAVA Full ETL load along with time passed. That means the baseline data of 4.0.6 is slightly more than that in 4.0.5, and that the data of 4.0.5 is slightly more than that in 4.0.4, etc. To improve the comparability of performance data release by release, we insert one pseudo record so that the ETL only inserts a single day's baseline. We get the same number of workitembaseline ELT builds inserted by this way.

---+++ ETL Comparison of DCC\JAVA\DM based on three CLM repositories

This part is target to get the performance gain of DCC ETL compared with JAVA ETL and DM ETL based on multiple CLM repositories. In theory, the DCC will save more time of ETL along with more CLM repositories to be loaded. Because, DCC can load all of the CLM applications concurrently. 

In this test senario, DCC loads 3 CLM repositories data (One CCM,QM,RM application registered on per CLM repository) concurrently. The DCC has two major improvements on :
 
    1. DCC performance has a significant improvement per the comarison of JAVA and DCC ETL, based on 3 CLM repositories. The duration reduced from 144 hours to 34 hours. And for the duration of specific applications, the DCC also has a significant improvement. Improved about 30% on QM loading, 20% on RM loading, 60% on CCM loading and 90% on Star job.

    2. DCC duration also has a significant improvement per the comarison of DM and DCC ETL, based on 3 CLM repositories. The duration reduced from 416 hours to 16 hours (96% improved).  And for the duration of specific applications, the DCC also has a significant improvement. Improved about 70% on QM loading, 90% on RM loading and 55% on CCM loading.

     <img src="%ATTACHURLPATH%/DCC_Comparison_JAVADM_3_Repo.png" alt="DCC_Comparison_JAVADM_3_Repo.png" width="785" height="407" />

       Row1. DCC_3_Repo : The DCC loads 3 CLM repositories data concurrently. 

       Row2. JAVA_3_Repo_Sequently : The JAVA ETL loads 3 CLM repositories in sequence. And for one CLM repository loading, JAVA ETL loads the apps in sequence as well. 

       Row3. DM_3_Repo_Sequently: The DM ETL loads 3 CLM repositories in sequence. and for one CLM repository loading, the DM ETL loads the apps in sequence as well.
   
---++ Appendix A
#AppendixA
<table class="gray-table">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<th align="left" width="200"><strong>Product</strong><br></th>
			<th align="left" width="100"><strong>Version</strong></th>
			<th align="left" width="600"><strong>Highlights for configurations under test</strong></th>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>DCC</td>
<td>DCC 5.0</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;"><strong>DCC Data Collection Properties:</strong>
   * Data Collection Thread Size = 60 
   * OS max number of open files set as 65536
   * OS max number of processes set as 65536</td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data warehouse</td>
<td>DCC 5.0 / DB2 10.1.1</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;"><strong>Transaction log setting of data warehouse:</strong>

   * Transaction log size changed to 40960 
   * Transaction log primary file number to 50
   * Transaction log secondary file number to 100
<verbatim>
    db2 update db cfg using LOGFILSIZ 40960
    db2 update db cfg using LOGPRIMARY 50
    db2 update db cfg using LOGSECOND 100
</verbatim>
</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="vertical-align: top;">IBM !WebSphere Application Server</td>
			<td style="vertical-align: top;">8.5.0.1</td>
			<td style="vertical-align: top;"><strong>JVM settings:</strong>

   * GC policy and arguments, max and init heap sizes:

				<verbatim>
-verbose:gc -XX:+PrintGCDetails -Xverbosegclog:gc.log -Xgcpolicy:gencon 
-Xmx8g -Xms8g -Xmn1g -Xcompressedrefs -Xgc:preferredHeapBase=0x100000000
-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=1g
</verbatim>

		</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>

<td>DB2</td>
<td>DB2 10.1.1</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;"><strong>Transaction log setting of data warehouse:</strong>

   * Transaction log size changed to 40960 
<verbatim>
    db2 update db cfg using LOGFILSIZ 40960
</verbatim>

</td>

		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>LDAP server</td>
			<td>IBM Tivoli Directory Server 6.3</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>License server</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td>Hosted locally by JTS server</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Network</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td>Shared subnet within test lab</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>
---++Appendix B
#AppendixB
<table class="gray-table">
 <tr>
  <th></th>
  <th><strong>Record type</strong></th>
  <th><strong>Record Per Repository</strong></th>
  <th><strong>Total Count for 3 repositories</strong></th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td><strong>CCM</strong></td>
  <td>APT_ProjectCapacity</td>
  <td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>Project</td>
  <td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>APT_TeamCapacity</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>Build</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>Build Result</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>Build Unit Test Result</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Build Unit Test Events</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Complex !CustomAttribute</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>Custom Attribute</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>File Classification</td>
  <td>3</td>
  <td>9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>First Stream Classification</td>
  <td>3</td>
  <td>9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>History Custom Attribute</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>SCM Component</td>
  <td>2</td>
  <td>6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>SCM !WorkSpace</td>
  <td>2</td>
  <td>6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem</td>
  <td>100026</td>
  <td>300078</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Approval</td>
  <td>100000</td>
  <td>300000</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Approval Description</td>
  <td>100000</td>
  <td>300000</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension</td>
  <td>3</td>
  <td>9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Approval Type</td>
  <td>3</td>
  <td>9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Category</td>
  <td>2</td>
  <td>6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Deliverable</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Enumeration</td>
  <td>34</td>
  <td>102</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Resolution</td>
  <td>18</td>
  <td>54</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td>Dimension</td>
  <td>68</td>
  <td>204</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Dimension Type</td>
  <td>8</td>
  <td>24</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Hierarchy</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td></td>
  <td> !WorkItem History</td>
  <td>282369</td>
  <td>847107</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
   <td> </td>
   <td> !WorkItem History Complex Custom Attribute</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td> </td>
  <td> !WorkItem Link</td>
  <td>101014</td>
  <td>303042</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td> !WorkItem Type Mapping</td>
  <td>4</td>
  <td>12</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td><strong>RM</strong></td>
  <td> !CrossAppLink</td>
  <td>136 </td>
  <td>408</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Custom Attribute</td>
  <td>2173181</td>
  <td>6519543</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Requirement</td>
  <td>634432 </td>
  <td>1903296</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Collection Requirement Lookup</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Module Requirement Lookup</td>
  <td>306000 </td>
  <td>918000 </td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Implemented BY</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Request Affected</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Request Tracking</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>REQUICOL_TESTPLAN_LOOKUP</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>REQUIREMENT_TESTCASE_LOOKUP</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>REQUIREMENT_SCRIPTSTEP_LOOKUP</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>REQUIREMENT_HIERARCHY</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>REQUIREMENT_EXTERNAL_LINK</td>
  <td>0</td>
  <td>0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td> !RequirementsHierarchyParent</td>
  <td>31610 </td>
  <td>94830</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Attribute Define</td>
  <td>10</td>
  <td>30</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Requirement Link Type</td>
  <td>176</td>
  <td>528</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td>&nbsp;</td>
  <td>Requirement Type</td>
  <td>203</td>
  <td>609</td>
 </tr>
</table>
<table class="gray-table">
 <tr>
  <th><strong>QM</strong></th>
  <th><strong>Record type</strong></th>
  <th></th>
  <th><strong>Record Per Repository</strong></th>
  <th><strong>Total Count for 3 repositories</strong></th>
 </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestScript</td> <td></td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>BuildRecord</td> <td></td> <td>20000</td> <td>60000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Category</td> <td></td> <td>520</td> <td>1560</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>CategoryType</td> <td></td> <td>120</td> <td>360</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Current log of Test Suite </td> <td></td> <td>6000</td> <td>18000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>EWICustomAttribute</td> <td></td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>EWIRelaLookup</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>CONFIG_EXECUTIONWORKITM_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECWORKITEM_REQUEST_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECWORKITEM_ITERATION_LOOKUP</td> <td>180000</td> <td>540000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECWORKITEM_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ExecResRelaLookup</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECRES_EXECWKITEM_LOOKUP</td> <td>540000</td> <td>1620000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECRES_REQUEST_LOOKUP</td> <td>60000</td> <td>180000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECRESULT_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>EXECUTION_STEP_RESULT</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ExecStepResRequestLookup</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ExecutionResult</td> <td></td><td>540000</td> <td>1620000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ExecutionStepResult</td><td></td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ExecutionWorkItem</td><td></td> <td>180000</td> <td>540000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Job</td><td></td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>JobResult</td><td></td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>KeyWord</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>KeyWordTestScriptLookup</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>LabRequestChangeState</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>LabRequest</td><td></td> <td>2520</td> <td>7560</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>LabResource</td> <td></td><td>24000</td> <td>72000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Objective</td><td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Priority</td> <td></td><td>4</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>RemoteScript</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Requirement</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Reservation</td> <td></td><td>32000</td> <td>96000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ReservationRequestLookup</td> <td></td><td>30</td> <td>90</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ResourceGroup</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>ScriptStep_Rela_Lookup</td> <td></td><td>240000</td> <td>720000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>State</td> <td></td><td>240</td> <td>720</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>StateGroup</td> <td></td><td>60</td> <td>180</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestCase</td> <td></td><td>60000</td> <td>60000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestCaseCustomAttribute</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestCaseRelaLookup</td> <td></td><td></td> <td></td> </tr> 
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTCASE_RemoteTESTSCRIPT_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTCASE_TESTSCRIPT_LOOKUP</td> <td>60000</td> <td>180000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTCASE_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>161060</td> <td>483180</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUIREMENT_TESTCASE_LOOKUP</td> <td>60000</td> <td>180000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUEST_TESTCASE_LOOKUP</td> <td>60000</td> <td>180000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TestCase !RelatedRequest Lookup</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestEnvironment</td> <td></td> <td>4000</td> <td>12000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestPhase</td> <td></td><td>1200</td> <td>3600</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestPlan</td> <td></td><td>110</td> <td>330</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestPlanObjectiveStatus</td><td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestPlanRelaLookup</td> </td><td></td><td></td> <td></td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUIREMENT_TESTPLAN_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTSUITE_TESTPLAN_LOOKUP</td> <td>6000</td> <td>18000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTPLAN_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTPLAN_TESTCASE_LOOKUP</td> <td>60000</td> <td>180000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTPLAN_OBJECTIVE_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUIREMENT COLLECTION_TESTPLAN_LOOKUP</td> <td>320</td> <td>9600</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTPLAN_TESTPLAN_HIERARCHY</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTPLAN_ITERATION_LOOKUP</td> <td>1200</td> <td>3600</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUEST_TESTPLAN_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestScript</td> <td></td><td>60000</td> <td>180000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestScriptRelaLookup _ Manual</td>  <td></td><td></td> <td></td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTSCRIPT_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUEST_TESTSCRIPT_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestScriptRelaLookup _ Remote</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestScriptStep</td> <td></td><td>240000</td> <td>720000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuite</td> <td></td><td>6000</td> <td>18000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuite_CusAtt</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuiteElement</td> <td></td><td>90000</td> <td>270000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuiteExecutionRecord</td> <td></td><td>6000</td> <td>18000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuiteLog</td> <td></td><td>30000</td> <td>90000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuiteRelaLookup</td><td></td><td></td> <td></td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTSUITE_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>15950</td> <td>47850</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>REQUEST_TESTSUITE_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuLogRelaLookup</td> <td></td><td></td> <td></td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTSUITE_TESTSUITELOG_LOOKUP</td> <td>30000</td> <td>90000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTSUITELOG_EXECRESULT_LOOKUP</td> <td>213030</td> <td>639090</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TESTSUITELOG_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TestSuiteExecutionRecord_CusAtt</td> <td></td><td>6000</td> <td>18000</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>TSERRelaLookup</td> <td></td><td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td></td><td>TSTSUITEXECREC_CATEGORY_LOOKUP</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td></td>  <td>Total</td> <td></td><td>1203023</td> <td>3609069</td> </tr>
</table>

N/A: Not applicable.

--------------------
---++++!! For more information

   * [[SizingReportCLM2012][Collaborative Lifecycle Management 2012 Sizing Report (Standard Topology E1)]]

---++++!! About the authors

Main.PengPengWang

--------------------
---+++++!! Questions and comments:
   * What other performance information would you like to see here?
   * Do you have performance scenarios to share? 
   * Do you have scenarios that are not addressed in documentation?
   * Where are you having problems in performance?

%COMMENT{type="below" target="PerformanceDatasheetReaderComments" button="Submit"}%

%INCLUDE{"PerformanceDatasheetReaderComments"}%
Attachments
Topic attachments
I	Attachment	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
png	DCC_Comparison_DM_3_Repo.png	manage	10.6 K	2014-05-12 - 06:45	UnknownUser	ETL Comparison DCC VS DM on 3 Repos
png	DCC_Comparison_JAVADM_3_Repo.png	manage	13.6 K	2014-05-12 - 06:51	UnknownUser	ETL Comparison DCC VS JAVADM on 3 Repos
png	DCC_Comparison_JAVA_3_Repo.png	manage	10.6 K	2014-05-12 - 06:44	UnknownUser	ETL Comparison DCC VS JAVA on 3 Repos
png	DCC_ETL_Comparison_3_Repo.png	manage	11.7 K	2014-05-06 - 08:19	UnknownUser	ETL Comparison DCCJAVADM 3 Repos
png	DCC_Performance_Test_Topology.png	manage	124.7 K	2014-04-16 - 09:48	UnknownUser	DCC_Performance_Test_Topology
png	ETL_Comparison_DCCJAVADM_One_Repo.png	manage	12.8 K	2014-05-06 - 08:16	UnknownUser	ETL Comparison DCCJAVADM One Repo
Copyright © by IBM and non-IBM contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use. Please read the following disclaimer.
Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.