It is still not late to submit a paper to the CMG conference. Although the abstract deadline passed, the enforced deadline is only the paper deadline – June 13.

I believe that it is the best conference about computer performance. Conference proceedings from 1997 through 2005 are available to the public – probably the largest collection of performance-related papers (and most of them are practical).

Almost all experts agree that pre-deployment "waterfall" performance testing (which, with the record/playback method, confused by many as the performance testing itself) is not enough - too little, too late. Actually it is just one very specific way of performance testing - with a full spectrum of other approaches, which are used so infrequently (at least as intentional performance testing techniques) that I don't recall finding any good classification. Thinking about it, I see several dimensions of performance testing which, although definitely correlated, probably might be considered somewhat independently - of course, just a raw idea for the moment, just an effort to order thoughts a little.

Looks like the pre-production validation approach to performance testing becomes typical for large corporations (if there is any at all):

-get the system ready
-develop all scripts requested (sometimes offshore)
-run them all together
-compare with the requirements provided
-allow some percentage of errors according to the requirements
-involve the development team if requirements were missed

Can't leave Ainars Galvans' posting unanswered. I think that it touches very important issues I am fighting for long time with, so this post is going beyond just a comment.

It is very interesting that I completely agree with Ainars on most items except final conclusions – which I completely disagree with. I suspect that it is rather terminology difference. So let's start with what I disagree.

The Computer Measurement Group (CMG) is making its conference proceedings from 1997 through 2005 available to the public. I believe that CMG holds the best practical conference in performance analysis, capacity planning, and related areas. In addition to the areas listed below, I'd definitely add performance testing. Here is the official mail CMG sent:

My performance requirements paper was published in the January issue of Software Test & Performance (pp.18-24).

It was simple: I just sent a draft – and now I am reading it printed. With a new name - or even two: it is referred as You Can Gauge Performance Without Requirements in one place and Gauging Performance in The Absence of Measures in another. Not to mention other minor improvement.

A few thoughts inspired by a question about qualitative and quantitative information reporting performance test results in Yahoo's LoadRunner group.

My understanding of qualitative and quantitative in the context of reporting performance test results is:

Quantitative is what we directly measure or straightforwardly calculate from direct measurements (like response times or resource utilization)

From time to time I see questions on different forums asking what skills are necessary for performance testers. There were pretty interesting discussions. Looks like most experts agree that performance testing requires more skills than just knowledge about how to create a script for a particular load testing tool. While it is still possible to imagine a performance tester in a large corporation with deep specialization who only creates scripts and mechanically runs them while other performance experts monitor the system and analyze results, I don't see many perspectives neither for this person, nor for the approach. Systems become so complicated now that the sum of specialized expert views doesn't give the whole performance picture.