- · Transaction Response time (measured in seconds)
- · Layer-wise / Component-wise response time breakup (measured in seconds)
- · System Throughput (measured in Transactions per second)
- · Server Load (measured in Users per unit time or PageViews per unit time or Hits per unit time)
- · Server Resource Utilizations (CPU, Memory, Disk & Network)
- · Scalability Level (# peak users supported)
Monday, September 26, 2016
Defect Management in Performance Testing
Learn about how different is defect management for Performance Testing in comparison with Functional Testing
Performance Testing though considered under the umbrella of Testing, it is very different from other testing types in many ways. One of the key differences is the defect management process. There is a complete change in the attitude towards finding defects in case of performance testing. It is not like functional testing where you are responsible for finding deviations from the expected results for your test cases to meet the requirements mentioned in the product specification.
In Performance testing, you need to carry a completely different attitude, often playing different type of roles during the test life cycle. You need to be have an attitude of a business analyst to validate the non functional requirements (this happens many a time unfortunately) & finalize your workload to be tested, you need to have an attitude of tester to decide on the type of tests & identify the violations in the application, you need to have an attitude of architect & developer to identify the root cause of the problems based on the test observations, you to need to have an attitude of infrastructure capacity planner to evaluate the hardware footprints & its projections to meet the target user loads, etc.
What is Defect Management?
While testing a software application, any deviation from the expected result mentioned in the functional specification document results into a defect or error. Defect management is a means to give insight about the quality of the software by reporting the defects found during the testing. It will vary in agile environment as defects are handled differently than in waterfall environment.
In case of functional testing, there are several best practices for reporting the test efficiency, test coverage, defect severity, etc using popular metrics like % Test coverage, % Test Efficiency, Defect Discovery Rate, % Test cases passed & failed, First run fail rate & many more. But unfortunately, none of above mentioned metrics can be applicable for performance testing. So, obviously using defect management tools like Quality Center, Bugzilla, JIRA, etc for performance testing might not be the appropriate way to track & close the bugs.
In Performance Testing, based on the performance investigation of various layers, here are few metrics that needs to be measured & reported. It would be more appropriate to call as a finding or test observation rather than ‘defect’. If there are any violations on the non-functional requirements (if quantitatively available), that can be reported as a finding. For example, if your NFR is response time of all the transactions is expected to be less than 5 seconds & if during your target load test, you observe some of the transactions beyond 5 seconds; this can be reported as a finding.
Sometimes, it might be required to rerun the tests to confirm the behavior or observation. How much analysis needs to be performed on the test results is purely based on the scope of work. From my point of view, every Performance Tester should need to carry out test analysis by using various techniques like correlation, scatter plot analysis, trend analysis, drill down analysis, etc to provide more insight on the problems / bottlenecks.
You can visit the below blog post to download a copy of “Performance Bottleneck Analysis Made Simple – A quick reference guide for Performance Testers”.
Happy Performance Testing!