Performance testing is a bit like visiting your girlfriend’s father. You’re never quite sure what you’re accomplishing, it can be alternately frustrating and satisfying, and you have to do it. Right now I’m in the midst of performance testing a web based application for my new company. I’ve been in such testing tangles before, though always as a consultant on a fixed bid project. I’d have to say that performance testing as an employee is less stressful than that.

The reasons why performance testing, especially of web applications, is such a rat’s nest are many:

complexity of platforms
Most modern web applications are built on a lot of code. In our case, it’s a servlet and logging framework on top of tomcat on top of the JVM on top of the operating system. Four levels on the web server, not counting the back end or the load balancer or any interaction with the browser! And this is a relatively simple system. I’ve seen portal applications that had 6 or more levels in the web server. Each level of the software stack interacts in (sometimes unforeseen) ways with the others, which means that changing parameters can have unpredictable effects. You simply must test every change you make.

realistic hardware
Unless you’re working with Scrooge McDuck or an application that has yet to be deployed, you’re probably not going to be able to test on production hardware. Very few companies I’ve dealt with are willing to buy a duplicate of their production hardware for testing purposes, so you’ll probably be testing on a scaled down version of the production system. That means that you’ll have to make assumptions about what the smaller system will tell you about the bigger system. One usually safe conclusion is that the smaller system sets a performance minimum for the larger system.

amount of time required
Each performance test takes a significant amount of time, minutes rather than unit testing where you want the unit tests to run quickly. Such slow turnarounds mean that performance testing just can’t be done quickly.

difficulty of understanding real user behavior
The more complicated your application is, the harder it is to understand how people are going to use it. Will they move quickly through the application? Will they leave sessions open for a long time? How many states will they go through? Anyone can come up with a reasonable guess as to the answers for these questions, but the only way to know for sure is to a) user experience test it, or b) unleash the application.

ambiguous or arbitrary goals
Unless you really understand how your userbase is going to use the application, it’s hard to come up with reasonable goals. ‘Make it run faster’ doesn’t cut it. Nor does picking an arbitrary number: ‘we want to service 10,000 hits a second’ may seem like a good goal, but if that number just was plucked from the air, a lot of misery can result. Especially if you’re on a fixed bid project, and every hour you spend is eating into your margin. (It’s OK for performance testing to make a tech person miserable, as long as there’s business benefit—and an arbitrary number is likely to under- or overshoot the optimum for business.)

difficulty of reproducing real user behavior
I’ve not had a lot of experience with for pay tools, but have used a variety of free (as in beer) tools. I’ve written before about my experiences with The Grinder, and am currently using JMeter. I’ve also used apachebench. And all of these tools were great at hitting URLs repeatedly and rapidly, but it was hard to really reproduce user (and browser) behavior because they’re simple programs. An example is that some versions of IE can call a servlet multiple times. You can’t possibly hope to replicate all the quirks of browsers when testing, but sometimes those quirks can have performance impacts.

These dimensions of complexity feed on each other. Because it takes so long to performance test an application, you are tempted to change more than one level of the application at once. Because you think you understand user behavior, you come up with an erroneous performance target.

Is it hopeless? Nope, and it can be a very good exercise—it can turn up areas of real weakness in your application. Just remember to document your assumptions, make the tradeoffs abundantly clear to non technical folks and realize that you’re going to miss something important. Your results won’t be worth as much as you think they will be. Oh yeah, and don’t sign any fixed bid performance testing contracts unless you know what you’re doing.

Joel has another interesting article, The Perils of Java Schools, where he laments the fact that many CS degrees are focusing on Java. His main points are that if you don’t focus on the harder parts of CS (recursion and pointers) then you don’t weed out inadequate programmers, and that Java doesn’t allow for adequate examination of those harder parts. Weeding is needed, even though the harder parts aren’t–for most jobs. (His example of the need for pointers is working on operating systems–how many programmers really need to do that? Darn few. [Of course, for those who are interested in working on operating systems, I’d recommend avoiding a Java based CS degree.]) In addition to weeding out those who don’t have a talent for programming, recursion and pointers are a great interview topics (see his Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing) for finding smart people to hire.

When I read his article, I thought about the two related responses to his lament. The first is that coding isn’t the most important thing for many ‘programming jobs’ anymore. For a large number of them, the ability to relate to business problems and solve business needs is much more important. See this article for a related discussion on how to avoid being outsourced. A pure coder is more likely to be outsourced than a coder who also knows the business. I’d argue that at many organizations, a brilliant pure coder who can’t relate to the business folks is less effective than a decent coder who can extract requirements.

I don’t have a CS degree. It has definitely hurt me at times: I’m not as comfortable with some of the lower level constructs (parse trees, pointers) as other colleagues with a traditional CS degree. However, my liberal arts education has benefited me, because the writing and oral communication skills that I honed at college help me pinpoint what non-technical folks want to build. In fact, while building a system is fun, the real challenge and reward of software engineering is finding out what needs to be built, and figuring out how to build it. Both types of skills are necessary.

But, the other point of his lament remains. How do you find intelligent software engineers, and how do you distinguish those who talk a good game from those who can actually play it? I was sitting around the poker table a few days ago and some friends were discussing MVC and n-tier architectures. It’s so easy to toss around those high falutin’ words–it’s another to understand the nitty gritty of building them–I don’t. But I don’t think anyone who hasn’t worked on those large scale systems really does–CS degree or not.

I don’t know any one way to distinguish good workers. The closest thing to a methodology I have is to ask them questions about real world situations that stonkered me, and see if their answers make sense. Joel still makes sense in the Guerrilla Guide when he says you want people who are “smart and get things done”. But I believe that the focus of development has changed enough that the lack of C knowledge is not a loss. Just as the lack of punch card skills is not a loss.

(Note that I’ve used software engineers, developers, and programmers synonymously above, which may or may not be a justifiable abuse of the English language.)

I recently (within the last couple of months) took a full time job as a software developer. After two years of contract software development, I have found it to be quite a change. I think that both contracting and full time employment have good things to offer; if you can manage it economically, contracting is well worth doing for a while. Why? A number of reasons:

When you contract, you’re responsible for finding your own work and making sure you get paid. This alone is worthwhile, as it gives you a fantastic appreciation for sales and accounting. The networking to find your next gig is great experience for moving up the food chain in a company.

You also get exposed to different technologies and businesses. In my two years, I did work in 6 different programming languages, a number of different frameworks (both free and expensive) and build environments, and 3 or 4 operating systems. That was great–I grew technically and learned how to tell if another techie was competent (and what they were competent at!) relatively quickly.

But more importantly was the variety of business situations I worked in. I did work alone, with one other technical person, on a team with no dedicated QA, on a team with dedicated QA and build staff. I did work with small companies, medium sized companies and enormous companies. I worked with startups and with established firms. Some of the organizations had excellent management structures–in others the inmates were running the asylum. And I paid much more attention than I would have if I had been an employee, because my paycheck rested on making sure that whoever was in charge was happy. This breadth of business experience is something that you cannot come by if you’re a full time employee.

Beyond that experience, there’s also the time and money factors. If you want to control your time, contracting is great–I regularly took multiple week vacations, because I was willing to sacrifice earnings for them. On the flip side, if money is more important than time, you can certainly earn significant amounts of money when contracting, as you get paid by the hour.

Contracting also has a lot lower stress than an employee-employer relationship. In my opinion, in a proper employee-employee relationship, the employee is loyal to the goals of the company (which implies understanding them–itself a difficult matter) and helps achieve those goals. In addition, if an employee makes a technology decision, they are living with that decision for the foreseeable future. These factors combine to make work as a full time employee more stressful; more rewarding, but more stressful. In the contractor-client relationship, you still want to do a great job. But the permanence of technology decisions isn’t there–either you’re doing work that fits into an existing technology stack or you’re making technology decisions but will be moving on in some finite period of time. Your stress is limited to whether your invoices will get paid!

There are downsides to contracting, too. For one, you’re not part of a team. You may work in a team, and they may make an effort to include you, but you’re not really part of that team–you’re just a hired gun who will do the work and then head off. When the inevitable bug comes up 5 months down the road, they can call you, but doing so incurs a higher transaction cost than if they just had to grab a fellow employee for a minute or two. The flexibility of money and time that you have can cause resentment too.

While the breadth of technologies and business methods can be great to experience, it can also be difficult to process. To hop in and be productive on the first day or two of a new contract can be hard, because you want to make sure you’re fitting into the existing processes.

All of the above comments are based solely on my experience. But I’d say that if you’re considering contracting, do it! It’s a great experience. Make sure you have a buffer of 6 months of pay, and then jump in.