Automated performance testing

Arne Wörner arne_woerner at
Mon Jan 31 07:54:05 PST 2005

--- Robert Watson <rwatson at> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > With all the discussion of performance testing between 4.11,
> > 5.3, and Linux, would it be useful to make performance
> > testing part of the automated testing that already occurs
> > (via tinderbox, iirc). Doing so might make it easier to
> > detect performance impacting changes, as well as
> > making performance testing easier in general. 
> Yes, it would be quite valuable.
> [...]
> I'd really like to see a small and fairly well-defined set of
> tests run every couple of days so we can show long term graphs,
> and catch regressions quickly.
Me, too.

> Unfortunately, this is a bit harder than tinder-boxing,
> because it involves swapping out whole system
> configurations, recovering from the inevitable failure modes,
> etc, which proves to be the usual sticking point in
> implementing this.

I believe, that a "dd bs=128k count=1000 of=/dev/null" (maybe with
several iseek values) would be sufficient to detect the worst

That test should be done on at least one box (always the same if
possible), whenever a hard disc is changed (then the box has
changed a little bit), and whenever there is a new release or some
development progress.

> However, I'd love to see someone work on it :-).
Me, too.

May I try, please?

Maybe I should admit, that I damaged my slices and partitions some
days ago, but now everything works fine again... :-))


Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list