It wont come as a surprise to people that know me I have a hard time focusing on work thats nearly done. And so finishing a release of swingbench is the hardest thing I have to do... Im always tempted to start thinking about the next relase in prefence to sorting out the final last issues and documenting all of the new features and functionality...

With this in mind Im interested to know what features people would like to see in the next release... Some ideas might be

• Load generated from trace files


• More benchmarks


• more sophisticated clusteroverview

Anyway let me know what you think... while I concentrate on finishing 2.3

Hi just a minor patch update to fix a few minor updates. Yup I do make changes based on feedback. Thats assuming I have time... Things are slowing down just a little at work as people head off on holiday so Im hoping to get 2.3 finished soon.. just the UI changes now... I'll be at Oracle HQ in the US next week so Im not likely to be able to respond to much email. For any of my work colleagues that need to get in touch I'll be on the mobile...
Back to the minor fixes

• Sorted out the save, save buttons so they should work as expected.


• Now a Transactions per second option for charbench(if this is useful I'll include it inside of swingbench and minibench)


• Benchmark name now include on window title for swingbench

I've just uploaded a new build of swingbench and datagenerator to the website. They can be downloaded here. The reason for the joint release is that they both provide support for a new DSS benchmark. I've described how to install and run the benchmark here. The benchmark still needs work and testing to determine some standard metrics but it hangs together. Let me know what you think here.

Over the last few days I've been putting together swingbench's first DSS benchmark. It uses datagenerator to create the schema and then a new config file to generate the load. The only reason I haven't posted it yet is that our cluster is currently in pieces and is slowly being put back together so I'haven't had a chance to test it on a large scale machine. Im certain of a few things. It should eat I/O and CPU. I haven't included any materialized views to improve perfomance simply because in the past I've been asked for a benchmark to test the I/O sub system, I think this is it. It currently needs a little work to get it to scale to large sizes but I'll post instructions. The ultimate aim is to deliver three sizes 100GB, 500GB and 1TB. There's no reason why they couldn't be bigger its just that I'll lack the resource to test it. If you'd like to give it a spin drop me a line and I'll send you the code. Regardless I hope to post the code by the end of the week.