Comparative Analysis of Web Platform Assessment Tools

Solange Paz, Jorge Bernardino

Abstract

Search engines are used daily anywhere in the world. Although they regularly use updated indexes to run quickly and efficiently, they sometimes fail to keep the user on their page for a long time. As such, it is important that their response time is the lowest possible Therefore, it is essential to understand what load is supported by each search engine by conducting load testing. These tests have the objective of optimizing the performance of the application being tested, thus verifying the maximum amount of data that is processed. In this paper we conduct a comparative analysis of the four most popular web platform assessment tools, Apache JMeter, Apache Flood, The Grinder and Gatling, and elect the best. In the experimental evaluation the search engines used are: Google, Bing, Ask and Aol Search.

References

  1. A. Avritzer and E. R. Weyuker, "The automatic generation of load test suites and the assessment of the resulting software," in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 705-716, Sep 1995. doi: 10.1109/32.464549.
  2. Alberto Avritzer and Brian Larson. 1993. Load testing software using deterministic state testing. In Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis (ISSTA 7893), Thomas Ostrand and Elaine Weyuker (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 82-88. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/154183.154244.
  3. Alberto Avritzer and Elaine J. Weyuker. 1994. Generating test suites for software load testing. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis (ISSTA 7894), Thomas Ostrand (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 44-57. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/186258.186507.
  4. Apache Flood, https://httpd.apache.org/test/flood/. [11 November 2016].
  5. Apache JMeter, http://jmeter.apache.org. [11 November 2016].
  6. Fei Wang and Wencaai Du, “A Test Automaton Framework Based on WEB” proc. IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer and Information (ACIS 12),IEEE Press, 2012.
  7. Gatling Project, Stress Tool, http://gatling.io. [11 November 2016].
  8. Gaurav Banga and Peter Druschel. 1999. Measuring the capacity of a Web server under realistic loads. World Wide Web 2, 1-2 (January 1999), 69-83. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019292504731.
  9. Information about Yahoo Error 999, http://www. scrapebox.com/yahoo-999-error. [11 November 2016].
  10. Jian Zhang and S. C. Cheung. 2002. Automated test case generation for the stress testing of multimedia systems. Software - Practice & Experience Journal, 32, 15 (December 2002), 1411-1435. DOI=http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/spe.487.
  11. K. Curran and C. Duffy. Understanding and Reducing Web Delays. International Journal of Network Management, 15(2):89-102, 2005.
  12. Lohr, 2012,” For Impatient Web Users, an Eye Blink Is Just Too Long to Wait” http://www.nytimes.com/ 2012/03/01/technology/impatient-web-users-fleeslow-loading-sites.html?_r=2.
  13. M. S. Bayan and J. W. Cangussu, "Automatic Stress and Load Testing for Embedded Systems," 30th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'06), Chicago, IL, 2006, pp. 229-233. doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC.2006.119.
  14. Monika Sharma and Rigzin Angmo, “Web Based Automation Testing and Tools”, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 2014.
  15. Monika Sharma, Vaishnavi S. Iyer, Sugandhi Subramanian and Abhinandhan Shetty, “A Comparative Study on Load Testing Tools” proc. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering (2007).
  16. Paul Barford and Mark Crovella. 1999. Measuring Web performance in the wide area. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 27, 2 (September 1999), 37-48. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ 332944.332953.
  17. R. Pressman. Engenharia de Software. McGraw-Hill, 6th edition, 2006.
  18. Ratcliff, 2016, https://searchenginewatch.com/ 2016/08/08/what-are-the-top-10-most-popular-searchengines/. [11 November 2016].
  19. Rizwan Khan, “Comparative Study of Performance Testing Tools: Apache JMeter and HP LoadRunner” (2013).
  20. Shariq Hussain, Zhaoshun Wang, Ibrahima Kalil Toure and Abdoulaye Diop, 2013, “Web Service Testing Tools: A Comparative Study”.
  21. The Grinder, a Java Load Testing Framework”, http://grinder.sourceforge.net/. [11 November 2016].
  22. Tikhanski, 2015, “Open Source Load Testing Tools: Which One Should You Use?” https:// www.blazemeter.com/blog/open-source-load-testingtools-which-one-should-you-use.
  23. Vahid Garousi, Lionel C. Briand, and Yvan Labiche. 2006. Traffic-aware stress testing of distributed systems based on UML models. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering (ICSE 7806). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 391-400. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134340.
  24. Xingen Wang, Bo Zhou and Wei Li, “Model based load testing of Web Applications”, Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA 10), IEEE Press, 2010.
  25. Z. M. Jiang, A. E. Hassan, G. Hamann and P. Flora, "Automatic identification of load testing problems," In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), Beijing, 2008, pp. 307-316. doi: 10.1109/ ICSM.2008.4658079.
  26. Zhen Ming Jiang. 2010. Automated analysis of load testing results. In Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on Software testing and analysis (ISSTA 7810). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 143-146. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1831708.1831726.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Paz S. and Bernardino J. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Web Platform Assessment Tools . In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST, ISBN 978-989-758-246-2, pages 116-125. DOI: 10.5220/0006308101160125


in Bibtex Style

@conference{webist17,
author={Solange Paz and Jorge Bernardino},
title={Comparative Analysis of Web Platform Assessment Tools},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST,},
year={2017},
pages={116-125},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006308101160125},
isbn={978-989-758-246-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST,
TI - Comparative Analysis of Web Platform Assessment Tools
SN - 978-989-758-246-2
AU - Paz S.
AU - Bernardino J.
PY - 2017
SP - 116
EP - 125
DO - 10.5220/0006308101160125