Sep 19: Alternative Pictures Demo
Note - features in this post require the Diagnostics Pack license
Not long after I'd finished the last post, I realised I could reinforce the points I was making with a quick post showing another one of the example tests supplied with Swingbench - the Calling Circle (CC) application. Like the Sales Order Entry application, CC is a mixed read/write test consisting of small transactions. As always, there's more information at Dominic's website.
One of the main differences to the SOE test is that the CC test consumes data so you need to generate a new set of data before each test using the supplied ccwizard utility. I won't show you the entire workflow here but enough to give you a flavour of the process. The utility is the same one used to create the necessary CC schema in the first place but the option I'm looking for here is "Generate Data for Benchmark Run".
I'd already decided that my CC schema is populated with data for 1 million customers when I created it so I just need to specify the number of transactions the next test will be for. I happen to know that on my particular configuration, a 1000 transaction test will take around 5 minutes to run.
I ran the test twice. I've highlighted the first run here in the Top Activity page.
It should be clear that CC suffers significant log file sync waits on my particular test platform, just like the SOE test. Therefore I'll regenerate the test data set, enable asynchronous commits and re-run the test. Here I've highlighted the second test run.
As well as seeing a similar change in the activity profile according to the ASH samples (the log file sync activity has disappeared as has the LGWR System I/O), there's a significant difference to the SOE test. Because this test run is based on a specific workload volume, as defined by the size of the test data, rather than a fixed time period, the second test run completed more quickly than the first run. The activity only fills the 5 minute activity bar partially, rather than the first test which filled the whole bar.
If you test a specific and limited workload volume it is much clearer from the Top Activity page which test is processing transactions more quickly, based on the Time axis. That's why I didn't pick this example the first time - it's too obvious what's going on!
Not long after I'd finished the last post, I realised I could reinforce the points I was making with a quick post showing another one of the example tests supplied with Swingbench - the Calling Circle (CC) application. Like the Sales Order Entry application, CC is a mixed read/write test consisting of small transactions. As always, there's more information at Dominic's website.
One of the main differences to the SOE test is that the CC test consumes data so you need to generate a new set of data before each test using the supplied ccwizard utility. I won't show you the entire workflow here but enough to give you a flavour of the process. The utility is the same one used to create the necessary CC schema in the first place but the option I'm looking for here is "Generate Data for Benchmark Run".
I'd already decided that my CC schema is populated with data for 1 million customers when I created it so I just need to specify the number of transactions the next test will be for. I happen to know that on my particular configuration, a 1000 transaction test will take around 5 minutes to run.
I ran the test twice. I've highlighted the first run here in the Top Activity page.
It should be clear that CC suffers significant log file sync waits on my particular test platform, just like the SOE test. Therefore I'll regenerate the test data set, enable asynchronous commits and re-run the test. Here I've highlighted the second test run.
As well as seeing a similar change in the activity profile according to the ASH samples (the log file sync activity has disappeared as has the LGWR System I/O), there's a significant difference to the SOE test. Because this test run is based on a specific workload volume, as defined by the size of the test data, rather than a fixed time period, the second test run completed more quickly than the first run. The activity only fills the 5 minute activity bar partially, rather than the first test which filled the whole bar.
If you test a specific and limited workload volume it is much clearer from the Top Activity page which test is processing transactions more quickly, based on the Time axis. That's why I didn't pick this example the first time - it's too obvious what's going on!
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
