Himanshu Ghai wrote:
"Why take the low road. If the requirement is for 6000, test for 6000.
If it works, you're done without all the extra testing."
i differ, if the system isn't deployed yet and breaks at 6000, it is
advisable to see if it scales a lower load..
How do you know that it will break at 6000 unless you test it at that
load level? Why waste time running tests that will give you irrelevant
information? Why not test at 6000 and if anything happens to break, then
investigate? IME this is a much more effective way to test for
performance requirements.
Cheers,
Kirk
it helps to segregate problem as well without adding extra noise of
system resources/network/client
Himanshu
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM, kirk <[email protected]> wrote:
it would be recommended to run it for less number of users first to see if
your servers can handle such load..100/500/1000
Why take the low road. If the requirement is for 6000, test for 6000. If it
works, you're done without all the extra testing. If it doesn't work then
you have a different problem
Regards,
Kirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
