Performance Test Download

[Imogen Petrusky]

ThePerformance Test tool is a single asset performance test that can be performed from 10 different locations around the world. It allows the performance of any URL to be tested and measured. The results returned will give a breakdown of the loading times and HTTP response headers.

The Performance Test tool can be used to evaluate the performance of a single asset to see where improvements can be made. Consider adding KeyCDN to your stack to significantly reduce the latency of your website.

This suite tests the ability of your video card to carry out 2D graphics operations for every day applications such as Word Processing, Web browsing and CAD drawing. This includes rendering of simple and complex vectors, Fonts and Text, Windows User Interface components, Image filters, Image Rendering, and Direct 2D.

This suite will exercise the mass storage units (hard disk, solid state drives, optical drives, etc.) connected to your computer. Involves sequential read, sequential write, random seek read+write and IOPS measurements.

PassMark has collected the baselines benchmarks of over a million computers and made them available in our network of industry recognized benchmark sites such as pcbenchmarks.net, cpubenchmark.net, videocardbenchmark.net, harddrivebenchmark.net and more.

Flexible, no nonsense licensing. Once purchased, you can move the software between computers as required.

No hardware locking.

No online activation process.

No time based expiry.

No annual fees.

Multi-user and site licenses also available.

See here for more licensing information.

Measure the read and write speed of your RAM. Parameters include data size (8 bits to 64 bits) and a selection of two test modes. Linear sequential access across various block sizes or non sequential access with a varying step size.

The performance check works by giving the browser and GPU work to do, then measuring the framerate at which it can do that work. Browsers limit the maximum framerate for a page to 60 frames per second. So the test searches for your system's limits by increasing the workload until the framerate starts to drop.

For this particular performance test, internet connection speed does not come into play. The data are loaded and tested locally on your machine to gauge system hardware performance. However, in general connection speed is a factor for things like model load times.

The accuracy of the performance measurements are subject to the general load on your system, and to some particulars of how the browser runtime interacts with our software. For best results when running the check:

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

Whenever I talk to people about performance testing, there's always discussion and different interpretations around exactly what the different types of performance testing are and what they are supposed to achieve.

There are very few hard and fast rules that define the terms used around performance testing, more so than any other type of testing. Everyone's interpretations seem to differ, and I think this is why performance testing is seen as a bit of a dark art by many.

So officially there are only two types of performance test; one that tests performance at expected levels and one that tests past expected levels. This is quite correct of course, but there is quite a bit more to performance testing than simply testing at the required level and past it. Having performance tested many systems over the years, there are certainly a number of other "performance test" types used regularly to evaluate system performance. Although these performance test sub-types don't have any formal definition in the IEEE standards, I've put a list together below that covers most of the different test types and terms I'm aware of, how I would describe them and their major objective. Hopefully, this might help remove some of the mystery around the terms we use in the dark art of performance testing.

What is FAST.com measuring? FAST.com speed test gives you an estimate of your current Internet speed. You will generally be able to get this speed from leading Internet services, which use globally distributed servers.

Why does FAST.com focus primarily on download speed? Download speed is most relevant for people who are consuming content on the Internet, and we want FAST.com to be a very simple and fast speed test.

How are the results calculated? To calculate your Internet speed, FAST.com performs a series of downloads from and uploads to Netflix servers and calculates the maximum speed your Internet connection can provide. More details are in our blog post.

What can I do if I'm not getting the speed I pay for? If results from FAST.com and other internet speed tests (like dslreports.com or speedtest.net) often show less speed than you have paid for, you can ask your ISP about the results.

Profilers are definitely a good way to get numbers, but in my experience, perceived performance is all that matters to the user/client. For example, we had a project with an Ext accordion that expanded to show some data and then a few nested Ext grids. Everything was actually rendering pretty fast, no single operation took a long time, there was just a lot of information being rendered all at once, so it felt slow to the user.

We 'fixed' this, not by switching to a faster component, or optimizing some method, but by rendering the data first, then rendering the grids with a setTimeout. So, the information appeared first, then the grids would pop into place a second later. Overall, it took slightly more processing time to do it that way, but to the user, the perceived performance was improved.

Finding documentation for all these tools is really easy, you don't need an SO answer for that. 7 years later, I'll still repeat the advice of my original answer and point out that you can have slow code run forever where a user won't notice it, and pretty fast code running where they do, and they will complain about the pretty fast code not being fast enough. Or that your request to your server API took 220ms. Or something else like that. The point remains that if you take a profiler out and go looking for work to do, you will find it, but it may not be the work your users need.

Some people are suggesting specific plug-ins and/or browsers. I would not because they're only really useful for that one platform; a test run on Firefox will not translate accurately to IE7. Considering 99.999999% of sites have more than one browser visit them, you need to check performance on all the popular platforms.

My suggestion would be to keep this in the JS. Create a benchmarking page with all your JS test on and time the execution. You could even have it AJAX-post the results back to you to keep it fully automated.

If the reader doesn't know the difference between benchmark, workload and profilers, first read some performance testing foundations on the "readme 1st" section of spec.org. This is for system testing, but understanding this foundations will help JS perf testing as well. Some highlights:

Ideally, the best comparison test for systems would be your own application with your own workload. Unfortunately, it is often impractical to get a wide base of reliable, repeatable and comparable measurements for different systems using your own application with your own workload. Problems might include generation of a good test case, confidentiality concerns, difficulty ensuring comparable conditions, time, money, or other constraints.

You may wish to consider using standardized benchmarks as a reference point. Ideally, a standardized benchmark will be portable, and may already have been run on the platforms that you are interested in. However, before you consider the results you need to be sure that you understand the correlation between your application/computing needs and what the benchmark is measuring. Are the benchmarks similar to the kinds of applications you run? Do the workloads have similar characteristics? Based on your answers to these questions, you can begin to see how the benchmark may approximate your reality.

Note: A standardized benchmark can serve as reference point. Nevertheless, when you are doing vendor or product selection, SPEC does not claim that any standardized benchmark can replace benchmarking your own actual application.

If this is not feasible (and usually it is not). The first important step: define your workload. It should reflect your application's workload. In this talk, Vyacheslav Egorov talks about shitty workloads you should avoid.

Then, you could use tools like benchmark.js to assist you collect metrics, usually speed or throughput. On Sizzle, we're interested in comparing how fixes or changes affect the systemic performance of the library.

I usually just test javascript performance, how long script runs. jQuery Lover gave a good article link for testing javascript code performance, but the article only shows how to test how long your javascript code runs. I would also recommend reading article called "5 tips on improving your jQuery code while working with huge data sets".

UX Profiler approaches this problem from user perspective. It groups all the browser events, network activity etc caused by some user action (click) and takes into consideration all the aspects like latency, timeouts etc.

There are lots of awesome tools that will help you keep an eye on performance without having you jump through hoops just to get some basics alerts set up. Here are a few that I think are worth checking out for yourself.

The golden rule is to NOT under ANY circumstances lock your users browser. After that, I usually look at execution time, followed by memory usage (unless you're doing something crazy, in which case it could be a higher priority).

3a8082e126