perfsonar development work

[Maciej Glowiak <>]

Michalis,

Please find some of my comments:

1)

You mentioned about measuring network connectivity times: T3, T4. In 
case of Java services it'll be difficult to measure these times, because 
of Axis. Perhaps we could use some internal Axis handlers or listeners, 
but we should ask someone who knows Axis better than me :)

As far as I understand, your document describes how the performance 
tests should be done in general, but your test case example was LS, so I 
assume it'll be one of the first tested services, so understanding our 
Java architecture would be quite important.

So, We have:

Client -> network -> Axis -> RequestHandler -> MessageHandler -> Service
(and the reverse sequence in back way)

Network connectivity time is dependent on various circumstances, and 
should be regarded separately.

Axis is now a black box for us. We can't measure time between sending 
message to the service and passing message as DOM to Request Handler.

RequestHandler, AFAIR, already measures time in milliseconds (I don't 
remember exactly, for sure I did it for my LS internal performance 
testing). The same may be done for MessageHandler and Service.

In fact RequestHandler and MessageHandler may be consider together as 
"PerfSONAR-base".

If you need any changes in perfSONAR-base classes in order to measure 
times of various components, just let me know.

2)

Categorization of requests is good idea in general, but without 
understanding the way how it works may be false.

For instance LSQuery and LSRegister. My understanding of your thoughts 
was that LSQuery may be more time consuming because it's dependent on 
what LS was asked for. That's true of course. But LSRegister may be even 
more time-consuming because of internal storage of XML database 
(sometime simple registration takes tens of seconds!).

So, I think in all cases there should be agreement between testing team 
and developers how to categorize requests and what they're dependent on.


Best regards

Maciej




Michael Michalis wrote:
> Sorry forgot the doc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andreas Hanemann 
> > [mailto:]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:39 PM
> > To: Michael Michalis
> > Cc: Nina Jeliazkova; Loukik Kudarimoti; Ilias Tsompanidis; perfsonar-
> > ;
> >  Athanassios C. Liakopoulos; Jochen Reinwand
> > Subject: Re: [pS-dev] Performance Testing
> >
> > Hi Michalis,
> >
> > I have used the commented version from Nina and added some comments on
> > my own. The testing method that you describe is very useful at least as
> > a first step. We have to see whether we need more specific tests later.
> > These could be needed to exactly determine the conditions of a service
> > performance problem (e.g. the differences between response time for LS
> > registration and deregistration requests reported during the perfSONAR
> > meeting by RNP).
> >
> > Best regards
> > Andreas
> >
> > Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> > > Hello Michael,
> > >
> > > Please find my comments in track changes (attached).
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Nina
> > >
> > > Michael Michalis 
> > > <>
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've put together an initial document describing performance testing. I
> > > > would greatly appreciate any comment or suggestions made on the
> > document.
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michalis Michael
> > --
> > Andreas Hanemann, 
> >
> > Boltzmannstrasse 1, 85748 Garching, Germany
> > Telefon:   +49 89 35831-8712
> > Fax:       +49 89 35831-9700


--

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Maciej Glowiak        Network Research and Development            ||
| 

     Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center ||
| (+48 61) 858 2024          -- skype_id: maciej_psnc   GG: 4526858 ||
 ====================================================================