SPONSORS:






User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Ipswich,Suffolk,UK
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    From reading through these forums - I have an idea that Loadrunner is quite a good tool, with appropriate infrastructure monitors but has quite a big foot-print per vuser. I also know it is more expensive than QA Load from Compuware.

    I've been looking for comments in the QA Load forum -but information is lacking. Does anyone have anyhing good to say about QA Load ? Does anyone use it ?

    ----------
    Michael

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    I also prefer QALoad over the other products available on the market because it is very powerfull and has a small footprint in terms of memory usage - I believe it is around 100k per simulated user!! And since it is not interpreted it makes it VERY quick so the timing results you get back are accurate.


    ------------------
    Have a good day!
    El Seeker
    elseeker@hotmail.com
    Have a good day!
    El Seeker
    elseeker@hotmail.com

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Portsmouth, NH, USA
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    QALoad is a very good tool, and Compuware has recently released version 4.8. One benefit of QALoad is that it is based on straight C. No proprietary scripting language (Mercury TSL). Since it is C, it can be compiled into machine code (DLL) and greatly reduce overhead and increase scalability (instead of being an interpreted script like TSL). It doesn't have as nice an interface as Mercury, and may be a bit harder to learn unless you are fluent in C, but I believe it is potentially much more powerful than LoadRunner in the right hands. All dynamic parameterization is also handled automatically for you, and QALoad can support recording several middlewares at once, unlike Mercury.

    ------------------

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    Hi Mike,

    I wouldn't bother with any of those two. I've gone through extensive evaluations myself, you should definitely have a look at Segue's SilkPerformer if you are serious about your project ... I think they are based in Reading (UK).

    Let me know if you need any more help!


    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike2001:
    From reading through these forums - I have an idea that Loadrunner is quite a good tool, with appropriate infrastructure monitors but has quite a big foot-print per vuser. I also know it is more expensive than QA Load from Compuware.

    I've been looking for comments in the QA Load forum -but information is lacking. Does anyone have anyhing good to say about QA Load ? Does anyone use it ?

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    Also, I forgot to mention, if you check out the Voting Poll you can see that SilkPerformer comes out top ...

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Portsmouth, NH, USA
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    Yes, Segue is a good tool, but the problem with Segue is that since certain upper management has stepped down and been replaced, the company has been in a bit of a financial situation. They are actually based out of Lexington, Mass I believe. A lot of customers don't even want to deal with them because with stock now dwindling at $3/share, they are afraid of long term support from the company, and a lot believe that Mercury is just waiting for the right time to buy them out anyways.

    I have been to a few test tool "bake offs" in the Boston area where Segue was one of the presenters. When most people showed off the uniqueness of their product and what made them better, Seque basically said "yeah, we can do that too...." and an actual quote from one of the shows "So, when you're ready to purchase a [load testing] tool, remember us...remember Segue." It sounded like a cry for help. Needless to say they got few visitors at their table after the presentation.

    I'm not saying in any way that their tool is inferior, but their presentation and marketing of it is, which will cost them a lot of sales and potentially the company in the long run.

    But, that's just my feelings. Considering most people in QA want to step away from instability, they aren't willing to buy from a company that are themselves, instable.

    - abatardi

    ------------------

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    NY, NY, USA
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    As a point of correction - Mercury's LoadRunner code is NOT interpreted TSL. It is straight (ANSI) C - compiled and full-strength!

    TSL and interpretation is in the WinRunner GUI-based tool.

    ------------------

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Portsmouth, NH, USA
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    Well, it's straight ANSI C (weeellll....maybe)... But since when is it compiled? Controller just interprets the .c file...

    - abatardi

    ------------------

  9. #9
    Points for Confirmed Friends
    Guest

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    >Well, it's straight ANSI C (weeellll....maybe)... But since when is it compiled? >Controller just interprets the .c file...

    Is this true?
    (WinRunner is an interpreter, but LoadRunner claims to really compile the code)

    How can this be verified?
    There doesn't have to be an .exe file, probably the executable code is stored in memory only.

    Some thoughts to check what really happens: what code is sent to agents, what time does it take to compile (or not) a very large/short script, what (temporary) files are created? (Ask Mercury?)

    rkat


    ------------------

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Loadrunner vs. QA Load (Recommend)

    I am not sure what Mercury does but I do know that QALoad is C code that does get compiled because they require MS VC++ in order to compile them. It ends up creating a .DLL that contains everything that a user will do (ie HTTP requests, etc.) You can use any C functions that you want and also any Windows API calls that you want (keeping in mind that this will not work on a Unix machine). The speed and custom-coding that you can achieve with QALoad is very good since there is no interpreter or "slow" scripting language involved!

    Cya.

    ------------------
    Have a good day!
    El Seeker
    elseeker@hotmail.com
    Have a good day!
    El Seeker
    elseeker@hotmail.com

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.36 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 9.38%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.4 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.8 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBNominate (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
BetaSoft Inc.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 PM.

Copyright BetaSoft Inc.