r12 - 2015-12-16 - 06:01:23 - LuLuYou are here: TWiki >  Deployment Web > DeploymentPlanningAndDesign > PerformanceDatasheetsAndSizingGuidelines > RTCSystemZPerformanceTesting > RTCEEPerfTestsData > RTCEEIncrementalBuildComparisonBetweenReleases

new.png Rational Team Concert For z/OS Incremental Build Performance Comparison Between Releases

Authors: SuHui LuLu
Date: Nov 24th, 2014
Build basis: Rational Team Concert for z/OS 4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.0.4, 4.0.5, 4.0.6, 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 6.0, 6.0.1

Introduction

This report compares the incremental build performance of RTC for z/OS between releases since v4.0.2 until v6.0.1. Generally constant performance improvements are made into releases of RTC for z/OS. The objective of this report is to present the improvements.

The performance data provided is obtained by benchmark test of each release. The report includes build duration and links to the detailed build activities.

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 customerís ability to evaluate and integrate them into the customerís 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 userís 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.

What our tests measure

We use predominantly automated tooling such as Rational Performance Tester (RPT) to simulate a workload normally generated by client software such as the Eclipse client or web browsers. All response times listed are those measured by our automated tooling and not a client.

The diagram below describes at a very high level which aspects of the entire end-to-end experience (human end-user to server and back again) that our performance tests simulate. The tests described in this article simulate a segment of the end-to-end transaction as indicated in the middle of the diagram. Performance tests are server-side and capture response times for this segment of the transaction.

schematicperformancetestmap.jpg

Findings

Based on the test data, incremental build performance of the RTC for z/OS has improved significantly from 4.0.2 to 6.0.1.

  • From 4.0.2 to 5.0.2, the overall improvement of the build time is about 30% to 50% depending on different test scenarios.
  • From 5.0.2 to 6.0, the time of incremental build with large change set improved more than 20%. "Collecting buildable files" and "Updating dependency data" activities during build preprocessing are the main improved activities.
  • From 6.0 to 6.0.1, "Updating Dependency data" activity is improved 120% and 'Compile' activity is improved 6%.

Constant performance enhancements have been made into release 4.0.3, 4.0.5, 4.0.6, 5.0, 6.0 and 6.0.1 to improve the build preprocessing speed.

Topology

The tests are executed in a Single Tier Topology infrastructure like the one in the following diagram:

Single Tier Topology: zLinux

singleTierRTCEETests.png

The RTC server was set up based on WebSphere and DB2 on Linux for System z. The build machine with Rational Build Agent was on zOS.

Test Environment
RTC Server Operating System & Version: Linux for System z (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 (s390x))
System Resource : 10 GB Storage, 4 CPs (20000 mips, CPU type : 2097.710, CPU model: E12)
CLM: from 4.0.2 GA to 6.0.1 GA, 4 GB heap size
DB2: 9.7.0.5 (from 4.0.2 GA to 4.0.6 GA), 10.1.0.0(5.0 GA to 6.0.1 GA)
WAS: 8.0.0.3 (from 4.0.2 GA to 4.0.5 GA), 8.5.5.1 (from 4.0.6 GA to 6.0.1 GA)
Build Forge Agent Operating System & Version: z/OS 01.12.00
System Resource: 6 GB Storage, 4 CPs (20000 mips, CPU type : 2097.710, CPU model: E12)
Build System Toolkit: from 4.0.2 GA to 6.0.1 GA

Methodology

Build time and individual activity time are compared by getting test start date and time.

The sample projects for the test are:

Test Data
Sample Project Mortgage*100 Mortgage*1000
Assets 600 COBOL programs
400 Copybooks
200 BMS
3 others
6000 COBOL programs
4000 Copybooks
2000 BMS
3 others
Total Assets 1203 12003

In the repository the source code is stored in one stream with one single component which includes 5 zComponent Projects.

Enterprise builds are executed twice against each version.

Test Scenario Description

After a complete build of all the programs, different changes are performed and a rebuild requested. These requests will rebuild the changed programs and impacted ones.

Test Scenario Description
Incremental Build 1. Change a copybook (MortgageApplication-Common\zOSsrc\COPYBOOK\A00MTCOM.cpy) and request build
2. Change a COBOL file (MortgageApplication-EPSCMORT\zOSsrc\COBOL\A00CMORT.cbl) and request build
3. Change all copybooks and request build
3. Change all COBOL files and request build

Results

Run duration & Build Activities

The charts below show the run duration comparison from 4.0.2 until 6.0.1. Builds are run twice against each release and the average time is taken for comparison. From 4.0.2 to 5.0.2, the overall improvement of the build time is from about 30% to 50%. From 5.0.2 to 6.0, the time of incremental build with large change set improved more than 20%. Links to the individual pages are provided for the detailed build activities.

Change a copybook file and execute build

onecopybook.gif

Detailed build activities comparison for this test scenario "Change a copybook file and execute build" can be found here.

Change a COBOL file and execute build

onecobol.gif

Detailed build activities comparison for this test scenario "Change a COBOL file and execute build" can be found here.

Change all copybook files and execute build

allcopybook.gif

Detailed build activities comparison for this test scenario "Change all copybook files and execute build" can be found here.

Change all COBOL files and execute build

This test scenario is designed and executed from 4.0.6 release.

allcobol.gif

Detailed build activities comparison for this test scenario "Change all COBOL files and execute build" can be found here.

Appendix A - Key Tuning Parameters

Product
Version Highlights for configurations under test
IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.0.0.3 (4.0.2GA to 4.0.5GA),
8.5.5.1 (4.0.6GA to 6.0.1GA)
JVM settings:

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

 -Xmn512m -Xgcpolicy:gencon -Xcompressedrefs -Xgc:preferredHeapBase=0x100000000
 -Xmx4g -Xms4g
OS configuration:
* hard nofile 120000                    
* soft nofile 120000
Refer to http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/clmhelp/v4r0m4/topic/com.ibm.jazz.install.doc/topics/c_special_considerations_linux.html for details
DB2 DB2 Enterprise Server 9.7.0.5 (4.0.2GA to 4.0.6GA),
10.1.0.0 (5.0GA to 6.0.1GA)
Tablespace is stored on the same machine as IBM WebSphere Application Server
License Server Same as CLM version Hosted locally by JTS server
Network Shared subnet within test lab

About the authors

SuHui LuLu


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?

Edit | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r12 < r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 | More topic actions
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © by the 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.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding the Deployment wiki? Create a new task in the RTC Deployment wiki project