Massachusetts Institute of Technology Touchstone Performance Test Plan
Abstract
This test plan is intended to prescribe the scope, approach, types of performance testing, resources and high-level schedule of the testing activities to be performed in the Touchstone project. This plan will identify the use cases, data, and related systems to be included in the testing process.
1.0 Document identifiers
1.1 Document Author
The document author is:
Author |
Title |
Telephone |
Email Address |
Will Smithee |
Senior Practice Manager |
336-232-5208 |
will_smithee@questcon.com |
1.2 Document Revisions
Issue |
Date |
Author |
Reason for Change |
0.1 |
01/27/2008 |
Will Smithee |
Initial draft |
|
|
|
|
1.3 References
The following documents were used as sources of information for this test plan:
- Questcon Technologies, The Questcon Test Management Methodology; 01/07/2005; (Test Management Methodology Release 4.0.doc).
- Questcon Technologies, MIT SOW Testing Touchstone.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose
The objective of this test plan is to outline the performance testing effort to be undertaken for the Touchstone project.
2.1.1 Project Description
MIT Touchstone is a new suite of technologies for authenticating a variety of web applications, being introduced by IS&T. MIT Touchstone provides a single sign-on solution for applications that have been coded and configured to use the system. Within the context of Touchstone enabled applications, users will be able to seamlessly transition between systems without being prompted for additional authentication information.
The intended audience of this document includes all IT personnel involved in the development, testing, and support of Touchstone.
2.1.2 Project Technologies
MIT Touchstone utilizes/integrates with the following technologies:
- Stanford's WebAuth
- Internet 2's Shibboleth
- SAML (the Security Assertion Markup Language)
- A new account management system for some users outside of the traditional MIT community
- HTTP/S (extensive redirects)
- SSL
- MIT X.509 certificates
- Kerberos (via the HTTP/SPNEGO protocol)
- TLS
- OpenID
- Web Services
- MySQL (including replication)
- Apache
- Tomcat
- IDP High Availability Package
- LDAP
- KDC
- DNS load balancing
2.2 Scope
2.2.1 Items To Be Tested
Each of the following business processes (user flows) will be tested under load:
- CAMS Account Creation
- CAMS Account Authentication
- CAMS Account Association (OpenID)
- Authenticated Kerberos user access
- Kerberos user id and password authentication
- Authenticated OpenID user access
2.2.2 Items Not To Be Tested
The following modules and types of tests are considered to be outside the scope of this test effort and will not be tested by Questcon:
- MIT X.509 certificate access
- Kerberos (HTTP/SPNEGO) access
- CAMS Account Association (Kerberos (HTTP/SPNEGO))
2.3 Risks & Contingencies
The following risks have been identified, which may impact the testing effort.
Risk |
Contingency |
Production-like test environment not available |
Utilize development or production environment. Results may not be indicative of production and therefore cannot be used as a benchmark. Production performance issues may not be identified during testing. |
Production-like setup and settings not available. |
Use the closest setup and settings we can. Results may not be indicative of production and therefore cannot be used as a benchmark. Production performance issues may not be identified during testing. |
Fully operational test tools not available. (i.e. tools capable of generating the desired load and capturing the desires metrics) |
Wait until the test tools are available or find and use another test tool(s). This will extend the time required to perform testing. |
Test time increases due to changes in scope requiring additional test analysis and/or test case creation |
If test time cannot be increased, reduce/cut performance testing scenarios and execute highest priority scenarios initially followed by lower priority tests until test time runs out |
Involvement of subject matter experts (SMEs) for all stages of the testing effort not sufficient. |
Extend testing time. |
Inadequate Non-functional Requirements |
Missing pass/fail criteria based on stated non-functional requirements will invalidate performance benchmarking. Missing load modeling will invalidate all test scenarios. The contingency is to perform only a brute stress test to try and flush out major bottlenecks and functionality under load issues. Additionally an endurance test can be run to attempt to identify memory leaks, although these tests will be less indicative of real world usage scenarios. |
Insufficient access to systems in order to monitor the tests (including any necessary server side scripts which may need to be developed in order to capture desired metrics). |
Root cause analysis will be difficult if possible. Testing time will most likely need to be extended and scenarios may be abbreviated due to time constraints. |
Substantial issue(s) which requires significant modifications to the application or re-configuration of the system are encountered. |
Some testing may need to be re-executed, possibly including re-scripting etc. This would extend testing time. |
Excessive number of bottlenecks encountered and/or issue correction time. |
Extend testing time. |
Test time increases due to changes in scope requiring additional test analysis and/or test script/scenario creation . |
If test time cannot be increased, reevaluate priorities and risks and execute tests according to new priorities. |
Conflicting information provided. |
Project manager will work to resolve any conflicting information, goals, and/or instructions received. |
3.0 Approach
3.1 Testing Strategy
The overall strategy for performance testing the Touchstone project is goal based. There are four main goals we hope to achieve:
- Performance - Benchmark the system to ensure it meets all documented non-functional requirements related to performance.
- Stress - Push the system to its breaking point and beyond to identify how and under what level of load the system fails as well as the ramifications of such a failure.
- Endurance - Place the system under a heavy, yet manageable, load for a protracted period of time to identify any performance degradation and/or memory leaks.
- Fail-over - Place the system under a heavy, yet manageable, load, wait for it to stabilize and then disconnect the servers from their network connections to identify how the system handles the sudden loss of a server. This will help satiate any up-time SLAs or non-functional requirements.
Scripts will be designed to model various user interactions with the system. While most of the user interactions will be scripted, some may be omitted according to the 80/20 rule and/or any time constraints which may exist.
3.2 Tools
The tools we will employ are yet to be determined. A proof of concept (PoC) is under way on a performance testing tool. If it is acceptable to MIT then this tool will be identified here. Otherwise further PoCs may need to be conducted until a satisfactory tool is identified and accepted by MIT.
The following tools will be used as part of the overall Touchstone testing effort:
Tool |
Purpose |
Used By |
Atlassian Jira |
Web-based defect tracking system accessed by http://mv.ezproxy.com.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/jira |
Touchstone Project Team (MIT & Questcon) |
StressTester |
Performance testing / load generation tool |
(MIT & Questcon) |
3.3 Environmental Needs
We will need the following:
- Stable production like system to test against.
- Stable hardware and software to use to generate load.
- Adequate rights and privileges to capture server side metrics (monitoring) as well as any server side scripts necessary to accomplish any needed monitoring.
4.0 Scripts
The following scripts will be used during the performance testing effort.
** Design steps for the following scripts have not been provided by MIT yet.
Script |
Objective |
Priority |
---|---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
End user creates a Touchstone account. |
High |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
End user associates their Touchstone account with an OpenID account. |
Medium |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
End user associates their Touchstone account with a Kerberos account. |
High |
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
End user access a site using an MIT machine that has a Kerberos ticket. |
High |
Site Access - Web Auth |
End User access a site using Web Auth. |
High |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
End user access a site using their CAMS accont only. |
High |
Site Access - OpenID |
End user access a site using their OpenID. |
Medium |
Password Reset |
End User resets their password. |
Low |
Admin - Password Reset |
Administrator resets an end user's password. |
Low |
Admin - De-Activate Account |
Administrator de-activates an end user's account |
Low |
Admin - Delete Account |
Administrator deletes an end user's account. |
Low |
Admin - Activate Account |
Administrator activates a de-activated account. |
Low |
5.0 Scenarios
5.1 Performance Testing Scenarios
A performance test is designed to benchmark the system under test under a realistic load scenario that mimics what we anticipate real world usage will be at its peak.
References to non-functional requirements marked as TBD will be updated once the non-functional requirements are provided by MIT.
5.1.1 IdPi Only
The objective of this scenario is to benchmark just the internal IDP.
5.1.1.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: TBD
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
TBD |
Site Access - Web Auth |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.1.2 IdPe Only
The objective of this scenario is to benchmark just the external IDP.
5.1.2.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: TBD
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
TBD |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
TBD |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
TBD |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
TBD |
Site Access - OpenID |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.1.3 Integrated IDP External & Internal
The objective of this scenario is to benchmark both IdPs concurrently.
5.1.3.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: TBD
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
TBD |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
TBD |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
TBD |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
TBD |
Site Access - OpenID |
TBD |
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
TBD |
Site Access - Web Auth |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.2 Stress Testing Scenarios
5.2.1 IdPi Only
The objective of this scenario is to stress only the internal IDP. We plan to push it gradually up to its breaking point and then beyond to determine how and at what load it fails.
5.2.3.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: OPEN
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
TBD |
Site Access - Web Auth |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.2.2 IdPe Only
The objective of this scenario is to stress only the external IDP. We plan to push it gradually up to its breaking point and then beyond to determine how and at what load it fails.
5.2.3.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: OPEN
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
TBD |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
TBD |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
TBD |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
TBD |
Site Access - OpenID |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.2.3 Integrated IDP External & Internal
The objective of this scenario is to stress both IdPs concurrently. We plan to push it gradually up to its breaking point and then beyond to determine how and at what load it fails.
5.2.3.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: OPEN
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
TBD |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
TBD |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
TBD |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
TBD |
Site Access - OpenID |
TBD |
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
TBD |
Site Access - Web Auth |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.3 Endurance Testing Scenarios
5.3.1 Integrated IDP External & Internal
The objective of this scenario is to run both IdPs concurrently for a protracted period of time (multiple days) to determine stability and check for memory leaks. We plan to load the system with 80% of the capacity as determined by the integrated stress test scenario and hold it. During this time special attention will be paid to memory and general system stability. There should also not be any appreciable deterioration in end-user response times.
5.3.1.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: 80% of capacity
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
TBD |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
TBD |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
TBD |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
TBD |
Site Access - OpenID |
TBD |
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
TBD |
Site Access - Web Auth |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
5.4 Fail-over Testing Scenarios
5.4.1 Integrated IDP External & Internal
The objective of this scenario is to check how both IdPs handle a sudden interruption in connectivity by pulling the network plug from one of the servers at a time.
5.4.1.1 Load Model
Desired Transaction Rate: TBD
Script |
% of Load |
---|---|
CAMS Account Creation |
TBD |
CAMS Association - OpenID |
TBD |
CAMS Association - Kerberos |
TBD |
Site Access - CAMS Account |
TBD |
Site Access - OpenID |
TBD |
Site Access - Kerberos w/ticket |
TBD |
Site Access - Web Auth |
TBD |
We will be able to specify the transaction rate, and load modeling once the non-functional requirements have been provided by MIT.
6.0 Monitoring
The following metrics will be collected from each Touchstone server during the performance tests to assist in diagnostics
- CPU %
- System Load
- System Memory
- JVM Memory (For each JVM)
- JVM Processor % (Hopefully we can get this through JMX) (For each JVM)
- JVM Garbage Collections (For each JVM)
- Apache httpd processes (memory, CPU, and open files for each process)
- Number of open files.
- Network Connections
- LDAP Connections (This would be applicable to Core IdP testing only)
- DB Connections (This would be applicable to CAMS testing only)
7.0 Non-functional Requirements
MIT has not yet provided the non-functional Requirements. The link below will be updated if a web page is created to house them, otherwise they will be specified here.
Touchstone Non-functional Requirements
8.0 Architectures
Architectural diagrams will be referenced here as MIT provides them.
8.1 Physical
Touchstone Production Physical Architecture
8.2 IdPi Logical
Touchstone Production IdPi Logical Architecture
8.2 IdPe Logical
Touchstone Production IdPe Logical Architecture
9.0 Schedule of Deliverables and Resources
9.1 Deliverables
This section identifies the deliverables, delivery date and resource responsible for each deliverable.
Key Deliverables |
Description |
Expected Delivery Date |
Resource |
Performance Test Plan |
This document. |
After all non-functional requirements and other needed data is delivered |
Questcon |
Performance Test Scripts |
Automated scripts used to deliver load. |
30 business days after test plan finalization and environmental needs are met. |
Questcon |
Performance Test Scenarios |
Automated execution designs used to conduct performance tests. |
~5 business days after scripts are developed. |
Questcon |
Execute Performance Tests |
Running of scenarios. |
10 business days |
Questcon |
Status Reports |
Accomplishments, issues and plans. |
Weekly |
Questcon |
Defect Reports |
Entered in Jira as they are discovered. |
Ongoing during test execution |
Questcon |
Performance Test Summary Report |
Details the results of the testing effort. |
3 business days after the last performance test is completed. |
Questcon |
9.2 Test Schedule
The planned test schedule of the Touchstone project has an anticipated start date of //2008 and completion date of //2008. The estimated completion date is based on several assumptions, some of which have been identified in 2.3 Risks & Contingencies.
Milestone |
Target Timeframe |
Summation of Activities |
Develop performance test plan |
01/15/2008 - 02/05/2008 |
|
Review performance test plan |
02/05/2008 - 02/11/2008 |
|
Build Performance test scripts |
//2008 - //2008 |
|
Build Performance test scenarios |
//2008 - //2008 |
|
Setup test data |
//2008 - //2008 |
|
Execute performance tests |
//2008 - //2008 |
|
Create test summary |
//2008 - //2008 |
|
TOTAL: |
73 Business Days |
|