Jazz Register Log in

EditAttachPrintable
r24 - 2017-09-29 - 15:37:02 - Main.hhuoYou are here: TWiki >  Deployment Web > DeploymentPlanningAndDesign > PerformanceDatasheetsAndSizingGuidelines > CollaborativeLifecycleManagementPerformanceScalabilityReportRQM603Release

new.pngCollaborative Lifecycle Management performance and scalability report: Rational Quality Manager 6.0.3 release

Authors: Hongyan Huo
Last updated: May 3, 2017
Build basis: Rational Quality Manager 6.0.3

In this report, RQM performance is evaluated repeatedly when the size of the repository has increased linearly, up to 10 million test artifacts in total: it finds out that, in the standard performance regression lab, some read operations tend to become slower as the data volume grows, while most write operations are not impacted. The report also compares the system resource usage and observes that with the same performance load, the CPU utilization on the database server is fast approaching its full capacity. Both of the test and analysis methodologies used in the report are consistent with our traditional regressions; the data in the results has a tolerance of +/-5% margin of error. The report provides a summary of results, and can be drilled down further into more detail. It also highlights the significant performance improvements made in the RQM 604 release.

Use the page content section on the right hand side to navigate. We can provide details of raw results upon requests.

Introduction

This report evaluates the performance and scalability of Rational Quality Manager (RQM) 6.0.3 release.

The test methodology involves these steps:

  • Proportionally increase the number of the artifacts of one single project area in the QM repository using the standard datashape (see Data volume and shape ); each repository under test includes 100 thousand, 200 thousand, 300 thousand ... and 1 million test cases, respectively
  • Repeat the same standard one-hour performance test load against each sized repository
  • Compare the page performance results and the server statuses

Disclaimer

The information in this document is distributed AS IS. The use of this information or the implementation of any of these techniques is a customer responsibility and depends on the customer’s ability to evaluate and integrate them into the customer’s operational environment. While each item may have been reviewed by IBM for accuracy in a specific situation, there is no guarantee that the same or similar results will be obtained elsewhere. Customers attempting to adapt these techniques to their own environments do so at their own risk. Any pointers in this publication to external Web sites are provided for convenience only and do not in any manner serve as an endorsement of these Web sites. Any performance data contained in this document was determined in a controlled environment, and therefore, the results that may be obtained in other operating environments may vary significantly. Users of this document should verify the applicable data for their specific environment.

Performance is based on measurements and projections using standard IBM benchmarks in a controlled environment. The actual throughput or performance that any user will experience will vary depending upon many factors, including considerations such as the amount of multi-programming in the user’s job stream, the I/O configuration, the storage configuration, and the workload processed. Therefore, no assurance can be given that an individual user will achieve results similar to those stated here.

This testing was done as a way to compare and characterize the differences in performance between different versions of the product. The results shown here should thus be looked at as a comparison of the contrasting performance between different versions, and not as an absolute benchmark of performance.

Summary of results

A series of load tests was conducted in the lab that showed consistent scalability trend as we increased the artifact numbers. To illustrate the performance characteristics, in this report, we extracted and compared the test data from the tests against repositories containing 100,000 Test Cases (total of 1 million Test Artifacts), 500,000 Test Cases (total of 5 million Test Artifacts), and 1 million Test Cases (total of 10 million Test Artifacts), respectively. In general, the average test results observed have an estimated +/-5% margin of error statistically. Here is the summary of findings:

  • We increased the repository size up to one million test cases (or ten million QM artifacts in total); the one-hour performance tests against each sized repository were run smoothly in the lab, while the servers remained healthy during the course of the load tests.
  • There are pages of which the performance is sensitive to the growth of the artifacts, under the pre-defined datashape. Loading these pages, measured by page response time, will take longer as the number of artifacts in the repository continues to increase. These pages include the viewing, sorting, and searching of all test artifacts per artifact type. For instance, under the traditional regression test load, the browsing/sorting/searching of test plans, test cases, test scripts, and test execution records degrade as their total counts grow, as seen in the chart below.

Browsing/sorting/searching artifacts: response time increases as function of repository size, some pages degrade faster due to the more rapid growth of the artifact counts

*TC: Test Case, TER: Test Case Execution Record. Every 100k Test Cases denotes 1M Test Artifacts in total.

**TC: Test Case, TS: Test Script

**TC: Test Case, TP: Test Plan

  • The performance of the following pages does not trend to degrade under load when the artifact numbers increase by datashape.
    • Page performance for opening a particular artifact remains unchanged when the repository is getting larger. These pages under test include: opening a test plan, or a test case, or a test script by loading the default summary section, as shown in chart
    • As the artifact number increases, the write operations tested remained at the same performance level under multi-user load. For example, saving a test artifact after modifying its contents, or executing a test case. Below is a set of selected write operations compared against different sized repository
    • For the detailed performance results for each use case, see this section: Detailed performance results.
  • As the repository size grows, the CPU on the database server is found to be busier in order to maintain the same test load. The CPU utilization has approached to 100% occasionally against the 10 million total test artifacts -based repository. For more details about the system resource please see section Resource utilization and, and section Topology of the systems under test.

Topology, network, and data volume

The topology under test is based on Standard Topology (E1) Enterprise - Distributed / Linux / DB2.

ServerOverview.png

The specifications of machines under test are listed in the table below. Server tuning details listed in Appendix - Key configuration parameters

Function Number of Machines Machine Type CPU / Machine Total # of CPU vCores/Machine Memory/Machine Disk Disk capacity Network interface OS and Version
Proxy Server (IBM HTTP Server and WebSphere Plugin) 1 IBM System x3250 M4 1 x Intel Xeon E3-1240 3.4GHz (quad-core) 8 16GB RAID 1 -- SAS Disk x 2 299GB Gigabit Ethernet Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.5
JTS Server 1 IBM System x3550 M4 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2640 2.5GHz (six-core) 24 32GB RAID 5 -- SAS Disk x 2 897GB Gigabit Ethernet Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.5
QM Server 1 IBM System x3550 M4 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2640 2.5GHz (six-core) 24 32GB RAID 5 -- SAS Disk x 2 897GB Gigabit Ethernet Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.5
Database Server 1 IBM System x3650 M4 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2640 2.5GHz (six-core) 24 64GB RAID 5 -- SAS Disk x 2 2.4TB Gigabit Ethernet Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.1
RPT workbench 1 IBM System x3550 M4 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2640 2.5GHz (six-core) 24 32GB RAID 5 -- SAS Disk x 2 897GB Gigabit Ethernet Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.4
RPT Agents 6 VM image 4 x Intel Xeon X5650 CPU (1-Core 2.67GHz) 1 2GB N/A 30GB Gigabit Ethernet Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.5
Network switches N/A Cisco 2960G-24TC-L N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gigabit Ethernet 24 Ethernet 10/100/1000 ports

N/A: Not applicable. vCores = Cores with hyperthreading

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.

Data volume and shape

The artifacts were created and increased gradually using the datagen utility. Every increase of 100,000 Test Cases in the repository is consisted of the following increase per artifact type:

  • 167 test plans
  • 100,000 test scripts
  • 100,000 test cases
  • 400,000 test case execution records
  • 400,000 test case results
  • 10,000 test suites
  • 667 test environments
  • 2,000 test phases
  • 20 build definitions
  • 4,747 execution sequences
  • 10,000 test suite execution records
  • 50,000 test suite execution results
  • 3,333 build records

  • QM Database size increase on disk ~ 31 GB

The artifact maintains the following associations:

  • each test plan is linked to 600 unique test cases, and 600 unique test scripts
  • each test suite contains 500 test cases

In addition, there are 5,000 work items (defects) in the CCM project area. The CCM repository size remains unchanged.

In this test, the Configuration Management is not enabled.

Methodology

Rational Performance Tester(RPT) was used to simulate the workload created using the web client. Each user completed a random use case from a set of available use cases. A Rational Performance Tester script is created for each use case. The scripts are organized by pages and each page represents a user action.

The work load is role based as each of the areas defined under sequence of actions which are separated into individual user groups within an RPT schedule. The settings of the RPT schedule is shown below:

User roles, test cases and workload characterization

User Roles
Use role % of Total Related Actions
QE Manager 8 Test plan create, Browse test plan and test case, Browse test script, Simple test plan copy, Defect search, View dashboard
Test Lead 19 Edit Test Environments, Edit test plan, Create test case, Bulk edit of test cases, Full text search, Browse test script, Test Execution, Defect search
Tester 68 Defect create, Defect modify, Defect search, Edit test case, Create test script, Edit test script, Test Execution, Browse test execution record
Dashboard Viewer 5 View dashboard(with login and logout)

Test Cases

Use Role Percentage of the user role Sequence of Operations
QE Manager 1 Test plan create:user creates test plan, then adds description, business objectives, test objectives, 2 test schedules, test estimate quality objectives and entry and exit criteria.
26 Browse test plans and test cases: user browses assets by: View Test Plans, then configure View Builder for name search; open test plan found, review various sections, then close. Search for test case by name, opens test case found, review various sections, then close.
26 Browse test script: user search for test script by name, open it, reviews it, then closes.
1 Simple test plan copy: user search test plan by name, then select one, then make a copy.
23 Defect search: user searches for specific defect by number, user reviews the defect (pause), then closes.
20 View Dashboard: user views dashboard
Test Lead 8 Edit Test Environment: user lists all test environments, and then selects one of the environments and modifies it.
15 Edit test plan: list all test plans; from query result, open a test plan for editing, add a test case to the test plan, a few other sections of the test plan are edited and then the test plan is saved.
4 Create test case: user create test case by: opening the Create Test Case page, enters data for a new test case, and then saves the test case.
1 Bulk edit of test cases: user searches for test cases with root name and edits all found with owner change.
3 Full text search: user does a full text search of all assets in repository using root name, then opens one of found items.
32 Browse test script: user search for test script by name, open it, reviews it, then closes.
26 Test Execution: selects “View Test Execution Records”, by name, starts execution, enters pass/fail verdict, reviews results, sets points then saves.
11 Defect search: user searches for specific defect by number, user reviews the defect (pause), then closes.
Tester 8 Defect create: user creates defect by: opening the Create Defect page, enters data for a new defect, and then saves the defect.
5 Defect modify: user searches for specific defect by number, modifies it then saves it.
14 Defect search: user searches for specific defect by number, user reviews the defect (pause), then closes.
6 Edit test case: user searches Test Case by name, the test case is then opened in the editor, then a test script is added to the test case (user clicks next a few times (server size paging feature) before selecting test script), The test case is then saved.
4 Create test script: user creates test case by: selecting Create Test Script page, enters data for a new test script, and then saves the test script.
8 Edit test script: user selects Test Script by name. test script then opened for editing, modified and then saved.
42 Test Execution: selects “View Test Execution Records”, by name, starts execution, enters pass/fail verdict, reviews results, sets points then saves.
7 Browse test execution record: user browses TERs by: name, then selects the TER and opens the most recent results.
Dashboard Viewer 100 View dashboard(with login and logout): user logs in, views dashboard, then logs out. This user provides some login/logout behavior to the workload

Response time comparison

The page performance is measured as mean value (or average) of its response time in the result data. For the majority of the pages under tests, there is little variation between runs, and the mean values are close to median in the sample for the load.

Detailed performance results

Average page response time comparison breakdown

NOTE

For all usecase comparison charts, the unit is millisecond, and for the data, smaller is better.

Browse Test Plans & Test Cases

*Page will be improved in 604, see Performance enhancement highlights in 604

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Browse Test Scripts

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Test Execution Record Browsing

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Create Defect

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Create Test Plan

*Page will be improved in 604, see Performance enhancement highlights in 604

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Create Test Case

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Create Test Script

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Edit Test Case

*Page will be improved in 604, see Performance enhancement highlights in 604

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Edit Test Environment

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Edit Test Plan

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Edit Test Script

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Test Execution For 4 Steps

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Simple Test Plan Copy

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Bulk Edit of Test Cases

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Full Text Search

*Page will be improved in 604, see Performance enhancement highlights in 604

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Defect Search

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

Defect Modify

Back to Test Cases & workload characterization

RPT network transfer comparison

RPT script executions

RPT script average executions during staging
Test scenario Average execution counts per load test
Execute the TER 1,459
Browse TER 907
Search Defect 602
Browse Test Script 501
Edit Test Script 205
Create Defect 193
Edit Test Plan 160
Modify Defect 158
Edit Test Case 153
Browse Test Plans And Test Cases 96
Create Test Script 90
Edit Test Environment 71
Create Test Case 45
Full Text Search and Open Test Suite 32
Bulk Edit of Test Cases 15
Create Test Plan 2
Simple Test Plan Copy 2

Resource utilization

DB2 Server resource utilization comparison:
1000users performance load against 100kTestCases vs 1mTestCases based repository
CPU Disk
Memory Network

WAS Server resource utilization comparison:
1000users performance load against 100kTestCases vs 1mTestCases based repository
CPU Disk
Memory Network

Garbage collection - JVM GC Chart

For JVM parameter please refer to Appendix - Key configuration parameters

Verbose garbage collection is enabled to log the GC activities. These GC logs showed very little variation between runs. There is also no discernible difference between versions. Below is one example of the output from the GC log for each application.

WAS JVM Garbage Collections
same load against 1mTestCases vs 100kTestCases based repository
QM
JTS

Highlight of performance improvements in RQM 6.0.4 release

Performance enhancements have been made into the 6.0.4 release; for details please refer to article Collaborative Lifecycle Management Performance Report RQM 604 Release

Appendix - Key configuration parameters

Product
 Version Highlights for configurations under test
IBM HTTP Server for WebSphere Application Server 8.5.5.9 IBM HTTP Server functions as a reverse proxy server implemented via Web server plug-in for WebSphere Application Server.

Configuration details can be found from the CLM infocenter.

HTTP server (httpd.conf):

OS Configuration:

  • max user processes = unlimited
IBM WebSphere Application Server Base 8.5.5.9 JVM settings:

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

 -Xgcpolicy:gencon -Xmx8g -Xms8g -Xmn2g -Xss786K -Xcompressedrefs -Xgc:preferredHeapBase=0x100000000
 -verbose:gc -Xverbosegclog:gc.log -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=1G
SDK version:

  • IBM WebSphere SDK for Java Technology Edition Version 7.1.3.40

Thread pools:

  • Maximum WebContainer = Minimum WebContainer = 500

OS Configuration:

System wide resources for the app server process owner:

  • max user processes = unlimited
  • open files = 65536

DB2 ESE 10.1.0.5
LDAP server
License server N/A
RPT workbench 8.3.0.3 Defaults
RPT agents 8.3.0.3 Defaults
Network Shared subnet within test lab

About the authors:

HongyanHuo is a performance engineer focusing on the performance test & analysis of products in the Collaborative Lifecycle Management family.

Related topics: Collaborative Lifecycle Management performance report: Rational Quality Manager 6.0 release, Performance datasheets

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?

Warning: Can't find topic Deployment.PerformanceDatasheetReaderComments

Attachments Attachments
Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
Pngpng DB2server_CPUutil.png manage 18.9 K 2017-05-01 - 19:03 UnknownUser  
Pngpng DB2server_DiskBusy.png manage 22.3 K 2017-08-18 - 16:24 UnknownUser  
Pngpng DB2server_Memory.png manage 8.9 K 2017-04-27 - 12:50 UnknownUser  
Pngpng DB2server_NetworkIO.png manage 36.9 K 2017-05-01 - 19:17 UnknownUser  
Pngpng WASserver_CPUutil.png manage 13.1 K 2017-04-27 - 14:04 UnknownUser  
Pngpng WASserver_DiskBusy.png manage 10.8 K 2017-04-27 - 14:04 UnknownUser  
Pngpng WASserver_Memory.png manage 8.3 K 2017-04-27 - 14:04 UnknownUser  
Pngpng WASserver_NetworkIO.png manage 19.9 K 2017-04-27 - 14:04 UnknownUser  
Pngpng browseTERs.png manage 24.1 K 2017-04-25 - 14:49 UnknownUser  
Pngpng browseTPsTCs.png manage 38.1 K 2017-04-25 - 13:34 UnknownUser  
Pngpng browseTestscripts.png manage 17.8 K 2017-04-25 - 14:49 UnknownUser  
Pngpng bulkEditTC.png manage 13.8 K 2017-04-25 - 14:49 UnknownUser  
Pngpng createDefect.png manage 9.5 K 2017-04-25 - 14:56 UnknownUser  
Pngpng createTestcase.png manage 9.8 K 2017-04-25 - 14:56 UnknownUser  
Pngpng createTestplan.png manage 11.1 K 2017-04-25 - 14:57 UnknownUser  
Pngpng createTestscript.png manage 10.0 K 2017-04-25 - 14:57 UnknownUser  
Pngpng dbCpuUtil_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 31.0 K 2017-04-26 - 13:18 UnknownUser  
Pngpng editTestcase.png manage 29.0 K 2017-04-25 - 14:43 UnknownUser  
Pngpng editTestenv.png manage 14.5 K 2017-04-25 - 14:43 UnknownUser  
Pngpng editTestplan.png manage 15.0 K 2017-04-25 - 14:43 UnknownUser  
Pngpng editTestscript.png manage 24.6 K 2017-04-25 - 14:44 UnknownUser  
Pngpng executeTER.png manage 21.3 K 2017-04-25 - 14:44 UnknownUser  
Pngpng fullTextSearch.png manage 11.9 K 2017-04-25 - 17:00 UnknownUser  
Pngpng gcChart_jts.png manage 29.0 K 2017-05-02 - 12:42 UnknownUser  
Pngpng gcChart_qm.png manage 50.0 K 2017-05-02 - 12:43 UnknownUser  
Pngpng modifyDefect.png manage 19.0 K 2017-04-25 - 17:00 UnknownUser  
Pngpng perfImprovement_604M5vs603GA.png manage 26.4 K 2017-04-25 - 13:49 UnknownUser  
Pngpng readAllTERs_pageRespTime_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 13.3 K 2017-05-03 - 14:35 UnknownUser  
Pngpng readAllTPsTCs_pageRespTime_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 14.8 K 2017-05-03 - 14:46 UnknownUser  
Pngpng readAllTestScripts_pageRespTime_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 19.5 K 2017-05-03 - 14:36 UnknownUser  
Pngpng scriptExecutionCounts.png manage 48.4 K 2017-04-26 - 14:32 UnknownUser  
Pngpng searchDefect.png manage 11.7 K 2017-04-25 - 17:01 UnknownUser  
Pngpng selectedReadIndArtifact_pageRespTime_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 21.6 K 2017-05-03 - 14:36 UnknownUser  
Pngpng selectedWrites_pageRespTime_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 20.9 K 2017-05-03 - 14:36 UnknownUser  
Pngpng serverThroughputs_vs_numArtifacts.png manage 16.1 K 2017-04-26 - 13:02 UnknownUser  
Pngpng simpleCopy.png manage 16.3 K 2017-04-25 - 17:01 UnknownUser  
Pngpng userload.png manage 17.9 K 2017-04-26 - 13:02 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r24 < r23 < r22 < r21 < r20 | More topic actions
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 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.