Towards reducing the time needed for load testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of large‐scale systems must be thoroughly tested under various levels of workload, as load‐related issues can have a disastrous impact on the system. However, load testing often requires a large amount of time, running from hours to even days. In our prior work, we reduced the execution time of a load test by detecting repetitiveness in individual performance metric values, such as CPU utilization, that are observed during the test. However, as we explain in this paper, disregarding combinations of performance metrics may miss important information about the load‐related behavior of a system. In this paper we revisit our prior approach, by proposing an approach that reduces the execution time of a load test by detecting whether a test no longer exercises new combinations of the observed performance metrics. We study three open source systems, in which we use our new and prior approaches to reduce the execution time of a 24‐hour load test. We show that our new approach is capable of reducing the execution time of the test to less than 8.5 hours, while preserving a coverage of at least 95% of the combinations that are observed between the performance metrics during the 24‐hour tests.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".