Rational Team Concert For IBMi Performance Comparison Between Releases

Introduction

The performance data provided is obtained by benchmark test of each release. Currently the report includes only the build information.

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.

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.

Findings

Based on the test data, build performance of the RTC for IBMi has improved significantly from 5.0.2 to 6.0, based on the new build map mechanism.

From 5.0.2 to 6.0, the big improvement is on 'collecting buildable file' activity of 'preprocessing' period, after changing all RPG files of MaillistX100 sample project, 'collecting buildable file' activity takes 5 minutes in v6.0 which takes 2 hours and 30 minutes in v5.0.2, improved almost 95%+.

From 6.0 to 6.0.1, 'Updating dependency data' has an improvement of more than 60%. This is a result of performance improvement of source code data scan.

Topology

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

Single Tier Topology: IBMi

The RTC server was set up based on WebSphere on IBMi. The build machine with Rational Build Agent was on IBMi.

Methodology

The sample projects for the test are:

• Maillist Application *100
• Maillist Application *1000

In the repository the source code is stored in one stream with one single component.

Enterprise builds are executed twice against each version.

Results

Note : since 6.0.1 benchmark , we have replaced our IBMi performance testing LPARs and new performance baselines are created. 6.0 benchmark have been re-run to compare on identical hardware.

Run duration

The charts below shows the run duration comparison between v5.0.2 and v6.0, and from v6.0 to v6.0.1. Builds are run twice against each release and the average time is taken for comparison.

Following table displays build test result with release by release comparison:

Build Activities

The chars below display the run times of build activity "Collecting buildable files" and "Compile" which have gained some improvements between releases. Builds are run twice against each release and the average time is taken for comparison.

For the full build activity run time details, please refer to following tables:

Detailed build activities comparison can be found here.

Appendix A - Key Tuning Parameters

 -Xmn768m -Xgcpolicy:gencon -Xcompressedrefs -Xgc:preferredHeapBase=0x200000000
 -Xmx6g -Xms6g

About the authors

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?

Warning: Can't find topic Deployment.PerformanceDatasheetReaderComments