DOCSLIB.ORG

Symbols & Numbers AB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Symbols & Numbers AB Anderson_Index 6/17/04 10:35 AM Page 387 Index Symbols & Numbers ALE (Application Link AutoController, 95, 145–48, Enabling), 231, 321 152, 158, 243, 256, 263, /n, 181 Allocation unit, 27, 85, 170, 268–69, 300, 303, 306–8, /o, 181 204 315, 322 %pc, 338–39 AMD, 227, 366 client driver, 271 % privileged time, 313 Apples-to-apples testing, 27, console, 272 % user time, 313 48, 60, 73, 78–79, 83, 121, virtual client, 269, 272 9iRAC, 132, 156 210, 232, 292, 316, 320, AutoIT, 136–139, 157, 183, A 325, 351, 354, 363 198, 232 ABAP, 21, 39–40, 61, 177, 185, API. See Application Automated data collection 212, 238, 285, 312, 360 Programming Interface (scripting), 93, 160, 165, ABAP dumps, 285 (API) 180, 182, 260–61, 323–24 ABAPers, 7, 313 APO (Advanced Planner and AutoTester ONE (AT1), Active users, 44, 285, 305, 324, Optimizer), 4, 18, 25, 74, 182–183, 249–50, 253, 256, 351 88, 225–26, 235 263, 268, 275, 283, 289 ActiveX, 123, 137, 139, 142, Application layer AutoTester ONE CTRL+S, 263 144, 157 heterogeneous system Availability, 7, 30–31, 59, Advanced Planner and landscape, 226 65–68, 94, 98, 101–2, 121, Optimizer (APO). See SAP: Application Link Enabling. See 132, 150, 171, 178–81, APO (Advanced Planner ALE 183–84, 201, 222, 226, 244, and Optimizer) Application Programming 288, 292, 299 AGate (Application Gate, Interface (API) Availability through component of SAP ITS), defined, 95 Redundancy (ATR), 369 204, 302 SAP, 132, 182–83, 241, 255, Average load testing, 19 agent, 122, 147, 163–64, 268, 271, 290, 338 176–79, 184, 322, 352 Application server response B CEN, 150, 183–184 time, 80 Background jobs, 67, 77, 183, defined, 184 Application Servers, 77, 104, 331, 336, 338–39 OpenView (HP) SMART 124–25, 127, 136, 147, 150, Background noise, 241 Plug–Ins, 177–78 172, 195, 203, 210, 214–15, Background work process, 336 AIX (IBM), 103, 168, 313, 218, 228, 238, 281–82, Bar charts, 115 377 353 Baselines, 43, 48, 54, 57, 62, AL02. See CCMS Application Service Provider 75, 76, 80, 211–14, AL03. See CCMS (ASP), 24 223–224, 229, 239, AL05. See CCMS AppManager (NetIQ). See 300–301, 304, 348, 350–54, AL08. See CCMS Systems management 356 AL11. See CCMS ATR, 369 establishing, 292–94 387 Anderson_Index 6/17/04 10:35 AM Page 388 388 Index Basis, SAP, 2, 3, 10, 38–40, 42, Business Continuity Planning. RZ03, 312 90, 91, 96, 101, 105, 132, See DR (Disaster Recovery) RZ04, 312 158, 184, 223, 286, 310, Business processes RZ08, 311 335 documentation, 160–61, 242 RZ10, 239, 360 Batch jobs. See Background repeatable, 78–81 RZ20, 184, 239, 302, 308–9, jobs scripts, 242 323, 361, 386 Benchmark which to test and why, RZ21, 312 CRM CIC, 236 73–75 SA38, 312 generating new Perl code, Business Sandbox, 61–62 SAINT, 185 137, 140, 232 Business warehouse. See also SCC4, 240 high water, 123 SAP: Business Information SCC8, 239 repeatable, 136 Warehouse (BW) SCCL, 239 standard (SAP), 72, 86, 109, loads, 50, 225 scripting, 150, 182, 261, 341 137 stress testing, 47–50 SE13, 330 starting point for custom Buy–in, 32, 187, 191, 253, 268 SE38, 150–51, 312 testing, 25, 27, 225, 235, SM04, 150, 181, 200, 239, 257 C 310, 325 variables (control), 26–27, CA Unicenter, 177 SM12, 312, 326, 327 223, 246–51, 256, 261, Capacity on Demand (COD), SM13, 312, 326, 327 263 24–25 SM21, 312 Best practices, 1, 16, 118, 202, Capacity planning, 12, 37, 54, SM36, 238 223, 299, 330, 352, 366 123, 162, 192, 215, 218, SM37, 238, 311 network, 127 287, 295 SM50, 239, 310–11 performance tuning and Carrying capacity, 375–76 SM51, 239, 261, 300, 312 stress testing, 1, 16 CATT (SAP Computer-Aided SM59, 300, 312 rebooting prior to testing, Test Tool), 91, 143–49, 221, SM64, 238 234, 299 243 SM66, 239, 305–6, 310, script recording and writing, CCMon. See Monitoring tools 311, 323, 325, 353 142–43, 259–60 CCMS (SAP Computing Center SMGW, 311 security, 127 Management System and SMLG, 311, 318, 325 sources of, 352 T–codes) SMQS, 311 staffing testing AL02, 311 SSAA, 312, 381 organizations, 89, 92–97 AL03, 311 ST01, 312 test package assembly, AL05, 311 ST02, 215, 239, 310, 222–24 AL08, 77, 83, 181–82, 215, 329–30, 358, 361, 381 WAST, 118 239, 261, 281, 305, 310, ST03, 49, 150, 181–83, 215, Big hair, 31 325, 338 219, 227, 236–37, 263, Biztalk (Microsoft), 230 AL11, 239, 312 303, 310, 320, 330, 333, Blocksize. See Allocation unit DB02, 150, 181, 239, 302, 335–39, 356, 358, BMC Patrol. See Systems 325, 356 361–62, 381, 383 management: Patrol (BMC) DB05, 330–31, 333, 358 ST03G, 335, 337, 338 Body of knowledge, 23, 188 DB13, 239, 358 ST03N, 182–83, 219, 310, Bottleneck historical ST07, 337 335–38 defined, 17, 19 monitoring, 38–39, 159–60, ST03x, 335, 337 forever–shifting, 26 300–3, 381 ST04, 150, 181–82, 200, Breakout Software MonitorIT, monitoring infrastructure, 215, 239, 302, 303, 310, 163 195, 290–92 326, 328, 335, 356–57, Bstat, 171 OS01, 239 361, 381 Budgets, 16, 92, 241 OS07, 181 ST05, 312, 361 Anderson_Index 6/17/04 10:35 AM Page 389 Index 389 ST06, 150, 181, 215, 239, Collaboration, 30, 41, 58 Core script development, 303, 305, 310, 333, 381 Collaboration Engine (SRM), 54 243–44 ST07, 150, 181, 215, 239, Collecting statistics, 321–25, Costs 305–6, 310, 337, 358 328, 333–37 acquisition, 377 ST09, 311 Commands (OS) delta analysis, 377–378 ST10, 330–31, 358 bstat, 171 downtime, 35 ST11, 312 chkdsk, 170 lifecycle, 377 ST12, 311 estat, 171 staffing (people costs), 35, ST22, 312 glance, 168 377–378 STAD, 186, 310–11, gpm, 168 standardization, 30–31 320–21, 324, 330, 333, iostat, 168, 171 CPUs 335, 338–39 lsdev, 168 delta testing, 72, 121, 279, STAT, 310 ping, 138, 163, 372 363 STATRACE, 186, 323 ps, 168 Crash and burn resources Central Instance (CI), 170, 195, sar, 168 (C&B), 196 214, 255, 358, 360, 370 swapinfo, 168, 283 CRM (Customer Relationship Change Control. See Change top, 168, 282 Management). See SAP: Management tracert, 138 Customer Relationship Change Management, 10, 34, vmstat, 168, 282 Management (CRM) 53, 91–92, 101–2, 180, 319 w, 168 Cross-application business Change Waves, 7, 23, 30, 49, Comparative analysis, 130 processes, 25, 56, 225, 236, 89 Competency Centers, 99, 112, 282, 352 Character sets. See Unicode 187, 352, 376 CSV (comma-separated value), CheckIt Diagnostics (or benefits of using, 191–92 175 CheckIt Utilities), 115–16, Component testing, 110, 123, Current–state baseline, 160, 162–63, 212, 213 128, 136, 159, 231–32 193, 376 Checklists Components (mySAP). See Current–state documentation, execution, 173, 192–93, SAP 160–65 205–6, 295, 301, 304, Compression, 12, 171 Customer–specific 323 Computer-Aided Test Tool. See benchmarking, 20, 109, paper–based, 180 CATT; eCATT 232 chkdsk, 170 Computing Center Management Cutover, 15 Christian Metal, 31 System. See CCMS (SAP Citrix MetaFrame. See Computing Center D MetaFrame (Citrix) Management System and Daily operations, 381 Client copies, 239, 273 T–codes) Data Client drivers Concurrent users, 44, 104, 127, clean, 200 installing, 268–69 276 inline data input, 246 sizing, 253, 267, 269 Consolidation (IT), 15, 29–31, list of good data tuning, 282, 285, 287 45–46, 58, 363–64, 382–84 combinations, 249 Clients Constraints, 31–34 Data collection client strategy, 267 Continuous improvement, 107, cutoff, 277 front–end, 6, 38, 96, 125, 287 manual, 163, 280 220, 270, 321 control variables, 25–27 observation (by way of), Client/server, 38, 146 cooling (data center facilities), 181–82 CI. See Central Instance (CI) 85, 104 using SAP CCMS, 44, 180, Clones, 262, 273 Comma-separated value. See 198, 210, 280 Clusters, 25, 68, 132, 166–68, CSV (comma-separated Data General, 4 369–71 value) Data locking, 71 Anderson_Index 6/17/04 10:35 AM Page 390 390 Index Data types success criteria, 75–78 testing, 5, 46, 103, 203, batch input, 270 systems management 355–57 input, 18, 70, 124, 193, approach, 175–76 tools, 129–36 204–5, 207–9, 270 test infrastructure, 75, 195, tuning, 58, 68–72, 80, input files, 249–51 244 83–85, 129, 132, 144, mapping, 349 Desktop computers 193–94, 204, 214, 240, output, 146, 206, 214, 254, Citrix and desktop TCO, 322, 356–58 231, 254, 260–61 221 upgrades, 48, 69, 72, valid, 230–32, 247, 267 client drivers, 268 364–65 Database Administrator (DBA), inventorying, 163–67 Disaster Recovery. See DR 3, 98, 152 standard configuration, 56 DLLs (Dynamic Link Database connectivity, 56, 146 testing with physical Libraries), 137 Databases desktops, 140–41, 230, DMI (Desktop Management data archiving, 79, 179, 199 234, 241 Interface), 167 Informix, 7, 177, 198, 215 versus virtual clients, Documentation load tools, 121, 122, 124, 242–44, 270 checklists, 13, 75, 173, 180, 129–36, 230–31, 365 Development (Business) 190, 191, 203, 205–6, management tools, 38–39, Sandbox, 61, 62 232, 288, 291, 292, 170–71 Development System, 3, 25, 60, 295–96, 301, 323, 366 Oracle, 4, 56, 73, 103, 146, 72–74 current state, 159–66, 170, 166, 198, 215, 227, 358, Dialog steps, 45, 50, 76, 79, 171, 184, 196–200 377, 383 183, 224, 238–39, 261, 285, Downtime windows, 2, 23, 128, populating via tools, 262 330, 356 366, 380 SQL Server, 4, 73, 102, 127, Disaster Recovery.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bull SAS: Novascale B260 (Intel Xeon Processor 5110,1.60Ghz)
    SPEC CINT2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation Bull SAS SPECint2006 = 10.2 NovaScale B260 (Intel Xeon processor 5110,1.60GHz) SPECint_base2006 = 9.84 CPU2006 license: 20 Test date: Dec-2006 Test sponsor: Bull SAS Hardware Availability: Dec-2006 Tested by: Bull SAS Software Availability: Dec-2006 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 12.7 400.perlbench 11.6 8.64 401.bzip2 8.41 6.59 403.gcc 6.38 11.9 429.mcf 12.7 12.0 445.gobmk 10.6 6.90 456.hmmer 6.72 10.8 458.sjeng 9.90 11.0 462.libquantum 10.8 17.1 464.h264ref 16.8 9.22 471.omnetpp 8.38 7.84 473.astar 7.83 12.5 483.xalancbmk 12.4 SPECint_base2006 = 9.84 SPECint2006 = 10.2 Hardware Software CPU Name: Intel Xeon 5110 Operating System: Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition (32 bits) CPU Characteristics: 1.60 GHz, 4MB L2, 1066MHz bus Service Pack1 CPU MHz: 1600 Compiler: Intel C++ Compiler for IA32 version 9.1 Package ID W_CC_C_9.1.033 Build no 20061103Z FPU: Integrated Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 (lib & linker) CPU(s) enabled: 1 core, 1 chip, 2 cores/chip MicroQuill SmartHeap Library 8.0 (shlW32M.lib) CPU(s) orderable: 1 to 2 chips Auto Parallel: No Primary Cache: 32 KB I + 32 KB D on chip per core File System: NTFS Secondary Cache: 4 MB I+D on chip per chip System State: Default L3 Cache: None Base Pointers: 32-bit Other Cache: None Peak Pointers: 32-bit Memory: 8 GB (2GB DIMMx4, FB-DIMM PC2-5300F ECC CL5) Other Software: None Disk Subsystem: 73 GB SAS, 10000RPM Other Hardware: None
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 2321 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES Case No. 13-md-02420-YGR ANTITRUST LITIGATION 12 MDL No. 2420 13 FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL This Document Relates To: WITH PREJUDICE AS TO LG CHEM 14 DEFENDANTS ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 15 AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO LG CHEM DEFENDANTS— Case No. 13-md-02420-YGR Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 2321 Filed 05/16/18 Page 2 of 74 1 This matter has come before the Court to determine whether there is any cause why this 2 Court should not approve the settlement between Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) and 3 Defendants LG Chem, Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. (together “LG Chem”), set forth in the 4 parties’ settlement agreement dated October 2, 2017, in the above-captioned litigation. The Court, 5 after carefully considering all papers filed and proceedings held herein and otherwise being fully 6 informed, has determined (1) that the settlement agreement should be approved, and (2) that there 7 is no just reason for delay of the entry of this Judgment approving the settlement agreement. 8 Accordingly, the Court directs entry of Judgment which shall constitute a final adjudication of this 9 case on the merits as to the parties to the settlement agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Name
    96HD1TB-ST-WD7KE Test Report Test Release Sherry65.Yang Job Title Buyer 2014-3-18 Requestor Date Testing AKDC DQA Jason.Jiang Job Title Revision V1.0 Engineer Engineer AKDC DQA Release Approved by Jier.Liu Job Title Formal Release Engineer Status Page 1 of 18 Drawings and specifications herein are property of Advantech and shall not be reproduced or copied or used without prior written permission. Revision History Revision Revision Description Creator Date 2014-3-18 1.0 First version released Jason.Jiang Page 2 of 18 Drawings and specifications herein are property of Advantech and shall not be reproduced or copied or used without prior written permission. Content Test Item List Summary ....................................................................................................... 5 Product Information ............................................................................................................. 7 Test Platform .......................................................................................................................... 9 Test Software ........................................................................................................................ 10 Test Item ................................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 1: Function test ................................................................................................ 11 1.1 Device Information confirm ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Filesystem Performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Vs
    COMPARING FILE SYSTEM I/O PERFORMANCE: RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX 6 VS. MICROSOFT WINDOWS SERVER 2012 When choosing an operating system platform for your servers, you should know what I/O performance to expect from the operating system and file systems you select. In the Principled Technologies labs, using the IOzone file system benchmark, we compared the I/O performance of two operating systems and file system pairs, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 with ext4 and XFS file systems, and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with NTFS and ReFS file systems. Our testing compared out-of-the-box configurations for each operating system, as well as tuned configurations optimized for better performance, to demonstrate how a few simple adjustments can elevate I/O performance of a file system. We found that file systems available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered better I/O performance than those shipped with Windows Server 2012, in both out-of- the-box and optimized configurations. With I/O performance playing such a critical role in most business applications, selecting the right file system and operating system combination is critical to help you achieve your hardware’s maximum potential. APRIL 2013 A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT Commissioned by Red Hat, Inc. About file system and platform configurations While you can use IOzone to gauge disk performance, we concentrated on the file system performance of two operating systems (OSs): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, where we examined the ext4 and XFS file systems, and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Datacenter Edition, where we examined NTFS and ReFS file systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypervisors Vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison
    2015 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering Hypervisors vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison Roberto Morabito, Jimmy Kjällman, and Miika Komu Ericsson Research, NomadicLab Jorvas, Finland [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract — Virtualization of operating systems provides a container and alternative solutions. The idea is to quantify the common way to run different services in the cloud. Recently, the level of overhead introduced by these platforms and the lightweight virtualization technologies claim to offer superior existing gap compared to a non-virtualized environment. performance. In this paper, we present a detailed performance The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: in comparison of traditional hypervisor based virtualization and Section II, literature review and a brief description of all the new lightweight solutions. In our measurements, we use several technologies and platforms evaluated is provided. The benchmarks tools in order to understand the strengths, methodology used to realize our performance comparison is weaknesses, and anomalies introduced by these different platforms in terms of processing, storage, memory and network. introduced in Section III. The benchmark results are presented Our results show that containers achieve generally better in Section IV. Finally, some concluding remarks and future performance when compared with traditional virtual machines work are provided in Section V. and other recent solutions. Albeit containers offer clearly more dense deployment of virtual machines, the performance II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK difference with other technologies is in many cases relatively small. In this section, we provide an overview of the different technologies included in the performance comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • “Freedom” Koan-Sin Tan [email protected] OSDC.Tw, Taipei Apr 11Th, 2014
    Understanding Android Benchmarks “freedom” koan-sin tan [email protected] OSDC.tw, Taipei Apr 11th, 2014 1 disclaimers • many of the materials used in this slide deck are from the Internet and textbooks, e.g., many of the following materials are from “Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach,” 1st ~ 5th ed • opinions expressed here are my personal one, don’t reflect my employer’s view 2 who am i • did some networking and security research before • working for a SoC company, recently on • big.LITTLE scheduling and related stuff • parallel construct evaluation • run benchmarking from time to time • for improving performance of our products, and • know what our colleagues' progress 3 • Focusing on CPU and memory parts of benchmarks • let’s ignore graphics (2d, 3d), storage I/O, etc. 4 Blackbox ! • google image search “benchmark”, you can find many of them are Android-related benchmarks • Similar to recently Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), most benchmarks on Android platform are kinda blackbox 5 Is Apple A7 good? • When Apple released the new iPhone 5s, you saw many technical blog showed some benchmarks for reviews they came up • commonly used ones: • GeekBench • JavaScript benchmarks • Some graphics benchmarks • Why? Are they right ones? etc. e.g., http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review 6 open blackbox 7 Android Benchmarks 8 http:// www.anandtech.com /show/7384/state-of- cheating-in-android- benchmarks No, not improvement in this way 9 Assuming there is not cheating, what we we can do? Outline • Performance benchmark review • Some Android benchmarks • What we did and what still can be done • Future 11 To quote what Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Better Performance Per Watt in Virtual Environments on Asymmetric Single-ISA Multi-Core Systems
    Towards Better Performance Per Watt in Virtual Environments on Asymmetric Single-ISA Multi-core Systems Viren Kumar Alexandra Fedorova Simon Fraser University Simon Fraser University 8888 University Dr 8888 University Dr Vancouver, Canada Vancouver, Canada [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT performance per watt than homogeneous multicore proces- Single-ISA heterogeneous multicore architectures promise to sors. As power consumption in data centers becomes a grow- deliver plenty of cores with varying complexity, speed and ing concern [3], deploying ASISA multicore systems is an performance in the near future. Virtualization enables mul- increasingly attractive opportunity. These systems perform tiple operating systems to run concurrently as distinct, in- at their best if application workloads are assigned to het- dependent guest domains, thereby reducing core idle time erogeneous cores in consideration of their runtime proper- and maximizing throughput. This paper seeks to identify a ties [4][13][12][18][24][21]. Therefore, understanding how to heuristic that can aid in intelligently scheduling these vir- schedule data-center workloads on ASISA systems is an im- tualized workloads to maximize performance while reducing portant problem. This paper takes the first step towards power consumption. understanding the properties of data center workloads that determine how they should be scheduled on ASISA multi- We propose that the controlling domain in a Virtual Ma- core processors. Since virtual machine technology is a de chine Monitor or hypervisor is relatively insensitive to changes facto standard for data centers, we study virtual machine in core frequency, and thus scheduling it on a slower core (VM) workloads. saves power while only slightly affecting guest domain per- formance.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptec 3405 SAS RAID Card
    Atomic | PC Authority | CRN Australia | iTNews | PC Authority Business Centre | SC Magazine | careers Search All PCAuthority SEARCH Newsletter SEARCH FEATURES LATEST FEATURES Home > Features > Adaptec 3405 SAS RAID card Search Adaptec 3405 SAS RAID card , | Features Comment Now Email to a friend Print this story By David Field, Staff Writer Fundamentally, mechanical hard drive technology hasn’t advanced all that much in the many years since its inception. In spite of the ever increasing speeds and capacities, we still have rotating CATEGORIES platters being accessed through mechanical heads. OPINIONS FEATURES The major breakthroughs have been in interfaces, REAL WORLD such as SATA (Serial ATA). These have provided a COMPUTING dedicated link between the drive and the controller with a smaller cable, and in the process MIND YOUR BUSINESS relegated ribbon cables to the technological graveyard where they are now fulfilling the role of TECH SUPPORT keeping laserdiscs and old iMacs company. HEADLINES Product brief July The same technology has made its way into the enterprise market, where the old SCSI standard has been superseded with SAS (Serially Attached SCSI). It provides a physically Feeling Good similar connection to SATA, however it still uses all the tried and true SCSI commands and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare adds extra features such as more bandwidth, redundant controllers and better management hands-on features. Half-baked Blackberry Fundamentally SAS takes the bulletproof (thousands of network engineers just cried out in Closing Pandora’s box pain when they read the word “bulletproof” in the context of hard drives) design of SCSI and delivers it through a similar interface to SATA.
    [Show full text]
  • Cigniti Technologies Service Sheet
    Cigniti Technologies Service Sheet Cigniti Technologies is an Independent Software Testing Services Company headquartered in Irving, Texas. Cigniti offers Test Consulting, Enterprise Mobility Testing, Regression Automation, Security and Performance Testing services. Over the last 14 years, leveraging its Smart Tools, Cigniti helped Enterprises and ISVs build quality software while improving time to market and reducing cost of quality. Designed to deliver quality solutions, the service portfolio spans technologies transcending Cloud, Mobile, Social, Big Data and Enter- prise IT across verticals and ensures impeccable standards of QA. World’s 3rd Largest Independent Software Testing Services Company Dallas | Hyderabad | Atlanta | San Jose | Des Moines | London | Toronto | www.cigniti.com Service Sheet Over the last decade, there has been a lot of transformation in the philosophy of testing and several tools have been introduced in the market place. With so many choices around, it has become a real challenge to choose the right testing partner / service provider. The Testing industry has witnessed a phenomenal growth in term of offerings, tools, and infrastructure with diverse engagement models. Now, it has become a lot more important for organizations to choose the right testing partner. Cigniti delivers Independent Quality Assurance Services backed by its proprietary IP. As a strategic partner, Cigniti brings comprehensive service offerings in the Quality Assurance space which accelerate overall test efforts for its clients. Cigniti’s Service Offerings TCoE Performance Testing Security Testing Cigniti's Test Center of Excellence Cigniti’s new age performance Cigniti’s security testing services lays down roadmaps for scalable testing frameworks initiate and ensure early detection with com- frameworks that enrich business revitalize performance across prehensive vulnerability assess- outcomes with speed, skill and systems, networks and software ment and match the emerging accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Onnto Datatale 2-Bay RAID S
    Onnto DataTale 2-Bay RAID System review - PC Advisor http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?ReviewID=3244365&pn=1 Ads by Google Hard Drive Raid Storage Raid Array SATA Storage SCSI Raid Reviews5,282 Reviews All Reviews > Hardware > Storage > Hard drives October 15, 2010 Onnto DataTale 2-Bay RAID System review Product Code: RS-M2QO The Onnto DataTale 2-Bay RAID System is a smart chassis to hold two hard disks, with four different connection options and choice of RAID configurations There may be a large selection of external storage solutions available nowadays, but once you start to look for specific features, you might find that the list becomes quite short. The Onnto DataTale 2-bay RAID System, sold by Storage Depot, is one product however that might be right up there at the top of that list. The Onnto DataTale 2-bay RAID System is designed to house two 3.5in hard disks and is attractive enough to sit handsomely on the desk. It connects by one of four standard desktop protocols. In order of speed these are: USB 2.0, FireWire 400, FireWire 800 and eSATA. As a two-drive system, we’re presented with a few options how to configure those disks. You can set to RAID 0, which combines the capacity of two drives and increases performance by striping data between the disks; RAID 1, which mirrors data between two disk for increased protection in case one disk fails; or JBOD (just a bunch of disks) which combines the drives with no additional speed or security failsafes, and lets you access the disks as two separate volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Center of Excellence How Can It Be Set Up? ISSN 1866-5705
    ISSN 1866-5705 www.testingexperience.com free digital version print version 8,00 € printed in Germany 18 The Magazine for Professional Testers The MagazineforProfessional Test Center of Excellence Center Test How can itbesetup? How June 2012 Pragmatic, Soft Skills Focused, Industry Supported CAT is no ordinary certification, but a professional jour- The certification does not simply promote absorption ney into the world of Agile. As with any voyage you have of the theory through academic mediums but encour- to take the first step. You may have some experience ages you to experiment, in the safe environment of the with Agile from your current or previous employment or classroom, through the extensive discussion forums you may be venturing out into the unknown. Either way and daily practicals. Over 50% of the initial course is CAT has been specifically designed to partner and guide based around practical application of the techniques you through all aspects of your tour. and methods that you learn, focused on building the The focus of the course is to look at how you the tes- skills you already have as a tester. This then prepares ter can make a valuable contribution to these activities you, on returning to your employer, to be Agile. even if they are not currently your core abilities. This The transition into a Professional Agile Tester team course assumes that you already know how to be a tes- member culminates with on the job assessments, dem- ter, understand the fundamental testing techniques and onstrated abilities in Agile expertise through such fo- testing practices, leading you to transition into an Agile rums as presentations at conferences or Special Interest team.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT to SECTION 13 OR 15 (D) of THE
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ፤ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended: October 31, 2008 Or អ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number 1-4423 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 94-1081436 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. employer incorporation or organization) identification no.) 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 857-1501 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common stock, par value $0.01 per share New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No អ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes No ፤ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]