A Framework to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Different Load Testing Analysis Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale software systems like Amazon and eBay must be load tested to ensure they can handle hundreds and millions of current requests in the field. Load testing usually lasts for a few hours or even days and generates large volumes of system behavior data (execution logs and counters). This data must be properly analyzed to check whether there are any performance problems in a load test. However, the sheer size of the data prevents effective manual analysis. In addition, unlike functional tests, there is usually no test oracle associated with a load test. To cope with these challenges, there have been many analysis techniques proposed to automatically detect problems in a load test by comparing the behavior of the current test against previous test(s). Unfortunately, none of these techniques compare their performance against each other. In this paper, we have proposed a framework, which evaluates and compares the effectiveness of different test analysis techniques. We have evaluated a total of 23 test analysis techniques using load testing data from three open source systems. Based on our experiments, we have found that all the test analysis techniques can effectively build performance models using data from both buggy or non-buggy tests and flag the performance deviations between them. It is more cost-effective to compare the current test against two recent previous test(s), while using testing data collected under longer sampling intervals (≥ 180 seconds). Among all the test analysis techniques, Control Chart, Descriptive Statistics and Regression Tree yield the best performance. Our evaluation framework and findings can be very useful for load testing practitioners and researchers. To encourage further research on this topic, we have made our testing data publicity available to download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".