Sign up in 30 seconds.
No credit card.
No risk.
No download.
The Price is Right for LoadRunner?
- Tags:
David Makogon tweeted something interesting a couple of weeks ago. It caught my attention and seemed to be very accurate, so I re-tweeted it. His post was:
"Agreed. LoadRunner is powerful, but steep learning curve+cost. 80/20 rule: do you "really" need it?"
So after I re-tweeted David's post, I got a response from @mtomlins that said:
"@loadstorm If you need speed, confidence, accuracy, scalability and reliability...then you need #LoadRunner and it's worth every cent"
That struck me as a haughty reply from someone that must think very highly of their own opinion.
I have no reason to argue with David's comment about learning curve and cost. It's no secret that load testers, QA professionals, and performance engineers all over the world know that LR is the most expensive solution available. Wonder why @mtomlins wanted to argue about it?
Here is the thread of Twitter exchanges that ensued (I'm @loadstorm):
loadstorm: @mtomlins so are you saying there is only one solution to get speed, confidence, accuracy, scalability, and reliability in an application?
mtomlins: @loadstorm There are perf testing tools that do a few things very well. I would argue that #LoadRunner does very many things very well.
loadstorm: @mtomlins Agreed it does many things very well. @dmakogon said so. His point was it's very expensive. What's cost for one 5,000 user test?
Expensive?...depends on the comparison. 3 years of LoadStorm costs about $35k, which isn't pocket change for most testers.
loadstorm: @mtomlins How much would 5,000 concurrent users cost for 3 years if I used LoadRunner?
So far I haven't received an answer from him. Notice how he deflected the question. I was truly curious about this guy at this point. Why would he go out of his way to try to make LoadStorm sound expensive? What motivation would he have to even be so silly as compare LoadStorm vs. LoadRunner on price?! You gotta be kidding me!
Ah.....he is the product manager for LoadRunner. He's the HP guy that must defend his baby. That's probably why he avoided telling me what LR costs for 5,000 users. LoadRunner pricing must be better than LoadStorm? Let's analyze that theory.
Well, I went to HP's site and found their Product Catalog and searched on "LoadRunner". It returned:
0 products shown below matched your search on "loadrunner"
I tried searching the whole HP site for pricing, but couldn't find any. Lots of white papers and brochure descriptions, but no pricing. You have to call their sales reps. Guess they don't want to scare people.
Then I tried Google Answers. It shows the following as LoadRunner pricing back in 2005:
$22,000 Controller
$55,000 500 virtual users
-----------
$77,000 Subtotal
$15,400 20% cost for support mandatory for first year
-----------
$92,400 First year software & support fees
$15,400 Second and following year support fees
Considering that @mtomlins chose to quote a price for 5,000 virtual users at unlimited test runs, I thought I would try to calculate an apples to apples price for LoadRunner. It seems to me that LR would charge this:
$572,000 License fee for controller and 5k vusers
$343,200 Support for 3 years ($114,400 annually)
------------
$915,200 Total HP software fees
$915,200 for LoadRunner 3 Year Software Fees
That's just HP's charges for the 3 years. We need to determine the full cost that compares fairly with LoadStorm, therefore we must add in costs for hardware/hosting LR. But alas, I searched in vain for a tangible answer to how many vusers can be run on a certain server configuration. I had to use what I could find and make some assumptions for this calculation.
Based on an Amazon EC2 large instance (7.5 GB memory, 2-core, 64-bit platform) generating 500 virtual users, servers for controller/monitoring/analysis, and bandwidth, hosting costs should be about $50,000 for the 3 years.
Hmmmm....David also mentioned the learning curve.
I have read blog posts from performance testing experts that claim it takes years to really understand and become proficient in LoadRunner. It is classic legacy enterprise software. I've worked in legacy enterprise software for probably 20+ years of my career, and it is clear that adding features is the only way to keep selling new versions. Build it bigger. Make that feature into a parameter with 5 options. Yep, been there...done that.
There is no question in my mind that LoadRunner is a feature-rich software product. I have heard that it is very flexible and has complex functionality to allow scripting at several levels. It has so many options and ways to build tests that it requires special training classes from HP.
There are 11 courses listed on HP Training Page. For example, LoadRunner Essentials is $3750 for a 5-day course.
Therefore, by my best estimate, it probably takes a million dollars and several months of learning to use LoadRunner. That's what David was talking about. The 80/20 rule would say that you can probably conduct your performance testing and satisfy about 80% of your requirements with 20% of the cost.
If my math is correct, then $35,000 is only 3.5% of $1,000,000. Let's review the comparison that @mtomlins is making:
LoadStorm | LoadRunner |
---|---|
5,000 vusers | 5,000 vusers |
3 yr Total Cost | 3 yr Total Cost |
$35,000 | $1,000,000 |
Pocket change | Ridiculous! |
Ok, maybe David was wrong with the 80/20 rule application. @mtomlins, it's actually WAY more expensive than that.
Comments
I work for an HP VAR. Your
I work for an HP VAR.
Your gross assumptions on the cost of 5K virtual users are incorrect, as is your pricing on the controller. Pricing is not linear when you go to ten times the number of users. Moreover you are comparing apples to oranges in many cases. 5000 Virtual users of which protocol? Are you looking at Web? Are you Looking at Oracle? Are you looking at SAP thick Client? Are you looking at Winsock? There are something like 35 different shipped interfaces for LoadRunner ranging from terminals to databases to email solutions to middleware to (yes finally) Web technologies. This is before you add the SDK for roll your own protocols. Let's not forget the substantial monitoring capability, rivaling that of some systems management solutions, to aid in the collection of information for diagnostic purposes
Again, are you are also looking at the Apples versus Bananas comparison (or perhaps Tangelos) of cost per execution cycle? This is not a unique comparison to LoadStorm vs HP LoadRunner as the comparison breaks for any "performance testing as a service: solution versus an in house owned tool. You could just as easily make this comparison between LoadStorm and Microfocus' SilkPerformer/QALoad or LoadStorm and Microsoft Visual Studio Teamtest.
If you have these commercial tools you can just as easily place load generators in the cloud if you wish as right next to your app. However, what is very well known in the commercial tools universe is the issue of clock skew inside of virtual machines as well as the VM overload effect on hypervisor distribution of resources on load generators. These issues with clock skew impact response times, collection of metrics on the load generator OS for any per second metrics and the ability to reproduce a test due to cross virtual machine influences on resource allocation under load. These influences are true no matter whether one uses a commercial or open source tool, uses a service or is in house. You are also at the mercy of whatever your VM tells you on the allocation of resources. Hypervisors report bizarre stats back to hosted OS', such as 230% of CPU, negative RAM allocation, etc.... This is across vendors, none are immune.
I have no problem with your use of Virtual Machines for load generation, so long as you fully disclose all known deviations from best practices and known impacts to timing record based data when test data is delivered. Then the customer can decide if VM load generation is 'good enough.' Granted, this is a lot like telling a new mother that her new child is ugly when you tell a developer that their code is slow, so one should expect to have results challenged is known integrity issues are disclosed. Hopefully they do not use the vm skews as an aluminum baseball bat to completely dispatch the results, but I have seen that happen
On April 1st, 2010, I celebrated 14 continuous years of working in the performance testing profession. It's a profession I love and want to see fortified with high quality performance test professionals, high integrity test results and high value to the stakeholders of our results. For all of us in the profession, we have far larger problems than skewering each other's tools in many cases. Across the industry 29:30 resumes for performance test professionals are outright misrepresentative of the capabilities of the person. This is across all tool vendors.
In an expanding industry the odds that a new customer will find their way to a fraudulent resource are incredibly high. With a mastery of the language the person is viewed as the expert, but lacking skills they cannot and will not be successful. This impacts LoadStorm as well. Imagine an immature person supplying a faulty load profile, incorrectly configured business processes, an inability to define the correct hosts to monitor. Garbage in: Garbage out. And yes, they will blame the tool and the vendor before they accept blame themselves. They will blame LoadStorm.
I am going to ask you to join many of the other voices in the industry to bring this issue to the attention of customers. The greatest danger to the industry across all tools and vendors resulting in ineffective, high risk, poor performance tests is the incredibly high level of skills fraud in our industry and the appalling low level of architectural expertise as required for the diagnoses of performance related issues.
James Pulley
James, Congratulations on 14
James,
Congratulations on 14 years in the industry. I have no problem with joining you in trying to improve the industry.
What is the source of your statement, "Across the industry 29:30 resumes for performance test professionals are outright misrepresentative of the capabilities of the person."?
I don't normally receive or view resumes from performance testers. Are there specific skills that are being fraudulently claimed?
Help me understand how I can help with your request.
Scott Price
He was being sarcastic. I am
He was being sarcastic. I am sure the actual ratio of fraudalent/misrepresented resumes are about 49/50.
Well, yes. But LoadRunner
Well, yes. But LoadRunner does a lot more than remote web testing. To a certain extent this argument is comparing apples and dolphins.
Sure, LoadStorm is "cheap" and uses cloud-hosted services to keep the price down. That's great, but won't work on non- web apps, or local apps inaccessible behind a firewall, or apps in production without outside internet access, etcetera etcetera.
I think it's fairer to compare LoadStorm to HP's LoadRunner-based hosted service, NOT the full boat LoadRunner install. I assume HP still sells that service (Mercury offered it).
Just my observations as a user of LoadRunner, I have no financial or other stake in this argument.
But no argument here that LoadRunner is expensive as (&#$%. It's definitely a huge investment for a company.
Agreed! Both with your point
Agreed! Both with your point about apples to dolphins and that LoadRunner is expensive as (&@#$%.
First, LoadStorm was designed exclusively for web applications. We never want to do load testing for non-web apps. We are happy to leave that to legacy tools like LR. What do you suppose is the proportion of applications being developed today that are non-web? I would suspect it is small as a percentage. As for inaccessible behind a firewall, yes we do get requests for that; however, they almost always can open a hole in the firewall using an unusual port, the user agent, or white list the IP ranges. No problem here.
If someone wants to pay an enormous amount of money because their network guys can't (or won't) tinker for 10 minutes with their firewall during testing, then we happily let that customer pass to HP.
Does anybody have the pricing on the HP hosted service? It does not appear to be published either. Secretive pricing only for "qualified buyers" implies there is something to hide. It does not, in my opinion, represent straightforward open free commerce. Old school. Seems funny that even HP's customers don't know if they sell that service. Stealth selling...wonder how that will work out for them?
Gbondy, thank you for your comment. I do appreciate it, and wish you nothing but success in your development endeavors.