posted 02-19-2002 03:03 AM         

I've looking for some feedback from anyone who has experience of using both LoadRunner and the Microsoft Web Application Stress (WAS) tool or Windows Capacity Analysis tool (WCAT) for web load testing. Given that LoadRunner is expensive, I'm assuming it has features that are not available within either of the Microsoft tools - can anyone tell me what the relative shortcomings of the MS tools are, please? Also, can anyone explain the difference between WCAT and WAS?

Thanks very much.

Mike.

posted 02-19-2002 07:05 AM         

Microsoft owns large licenses for the use of LoadRunner and uses it for their Premier customers in their Premier Customer Labs. Clearly, there is a role for both and even Microsoft recognizes the limitations of their internal tools. I can't think of a better endorsement to suggest that one is not a direct replacement for the other.

It is my understanding from a distant view of the Microsoft tools, that their focus is for developers or for limited benchmarking of one server versus another. Mercury's tools are more focused on the business process and generate statistics appropriate for reporting on success, failure and volume of a representative business process under load.

posted 02-21-2002 03:33 PM         

The basic 'Free' product supports 'HTTP' transaction response time and 'HTTP' transactions per second. The 'Plug in' options that you can buy are for Database transaction monitoring, just to clarify.
Follow this link for all the reporting features which are 'Free' with OpenSTA.
http://www.opensta.org/docs/ug13/os-resul.htm

posted 03-07-2002 09:11 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikedawson:
Hi All

I've looking for some feedback from anyone who has experience of using both LoadRunner and the Microsoft Web Application Stress (WAS) tool or Windows Capacity Analysis tool (WCAT) for web load testing. Given that LoadRunner is expensive, I'm assuming it has features that are not available within either of the Microsoft tools - can anyone tell me what the relative shortcomings of the MS tools are, please? Also, can anyone explain the difference between WCAT and WAS?

Thanks very much.

Mike.

---

Mike, what type of app are you looking to test? May be we can help. Our OpenLoad testing tool is full featured, easy-to-use and fairly inexpensive as compared to the other tools on the market. Check-out http://www.opendemand.com/ or drop me a line.

Thanks,
Don

posted 05-07-2002 04:58 AM         

Difference WCAT v WAS

The WCAT tool involves placing, pre-prepared files on the Server. The WCAT tool then runs 'load patterns' using these files. This is a good general tool for sizing but will not reporoduce load specific to your site. It can support GET/POST and HEAD but the POSTs are limited to pre-written asp files. The server must be Microsoft based. If you can generlize the load, this tool is ideal for capacity planning/Benchmarking an IIS based Web Site.
The 'WebStone' benchmark can be determined using WCAT.

WAS -
Targets any http server (not just IIS)
Allows you to write your own simulations accessing your own files, it is not a requirement to place any 'pre-prepared' files onto the server.

WAS v LoadRunner (since WCAT takes a different approach)

LoadRunner supports many protocols, not just http.

LoadRunner is a script based tool, which supports response parsing. This is vital for 'url re-writing' and allows you to use the data returned. Take Ebay as an example, you could retrieve the latest bid and make a bid based on the 'minimum required bid', this type of processing is not possible with WAS were there is no access to the http response data.

LoadRunner has other advantages, ease of use, access to results etc. but the above are the essential functional differences.

Regards

Ian

------------------