Difference between Loarunner Controller and Performance Center
Brahma prakash Toppana
James Pulley
Controllers can be standalone or act as a controller node as a part of a larger performance center architecture. So, in that sense Performance Center, its management of test assets and results, it’s remote access methods, etc… are all layered on top of an existing set of controllers that actually are responsible for the execution of the tests. Although it’s not widely documented, a DCOM interface does exist for a LoadRunner controller, allowing for programmatic access to the controller for test setup and execution. You can see how an API set such as this could be leveraged to incorporate a standard controller into a larger management and process toolset such as Performance Center.
As Performance Center replaces your user interface with a web-based console for your activities you would imagine that your experience would be very different. You would be right. You also have the concepts of roles and assets which have schedules associated with their use. You have centralized management of test assets in a way that makes a heckuva a lot more sense than any consideration for storage within quality center. A lot of the finer degrees of control that you have at the edges of the controller use are missing or clumsy in performance center, such as the use of additional attributes from the run time settings dialogs. But it is a tradeoff of the larger feature sets with every detail possible in the controller.
The licensing model changes dramatically with PerformanceCenter. By default the standard controller has very narrowly defined remote use in the license agreement. If you are on a different continent or in a different state you really need to read very carefully the click to accept dialog which contains the license agreement which outlines remote access for the controller and performance center console. On the other hand, by default PerformanceCenter was designed for remote access with its web console model.
If you have multiple controllers there is a point where you will probably consider PerformanceCenter. If you have one, you probably won’t consider it unless you fall outside of the license constraints on the standard controller and remote access which then bumps you into the PerformanceCenter access realm. It’s too bad that HP doesn’t offer a licensing term in the middle for single controllers, such as National Remote Access licensing or Global Remote Access licensing for a single controller, for this might make more sense than having to deploy PerformanceCenter for a single controller instance.
James Pulley, http://www.loadrunnerbythehour.com/PricingMatrix
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google "LoadRunner" group.
To post to this group, send email to LR-Loa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
LR-LoadRunne...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/LR-LoadRunner?hl=en