month, we announced
that we’re working on an updated CloudXPRT web microservices test package. The purpose
of the update is to fix installation failures on Google Cloud Platform and
Microsoft Azure, and ensure that the web microservices workload works on Ubuntu
22.04, using updated software components such as Kubernetes v1.23.7, Kubespray
v2.18.1, and Kubernetes Metrics Server v1. The update also incorporates some
additional minor script changes.
are still testing the updated test package with on-premises hardware and Amazon
Web Services, Google Cloud Platform, and Microsoft Azure configurations. So
far, testing is progressing well, and we feel increasingly confident that we
will be able to release the updated test package soon. We would like to share a
more concrete release schedule, but because of the complexity of the workload
and the CSP platforms involved, we are waiting until we are certain that
everything is ready to go.
name of the updated package will be CloudXPRT v1.2, and it will include only the
updated v1.2 test harness and the updated web microservices workload. It will
not include the data analytics workload. As we stated in last month’s blog, we plan
to publish the updated web microservices package, and see what kind of interest
we receive from users about a possible refresh of the v1.1 data analytics workload.
For now, the v1.1 data analytics workload will continue to be available via CloudXPRT.com
for some time to serve as a reference resource for users that have worked with
the package in the past.
soon as possible, we’ll provide more information about the CloudXPRT v1.2 release
date here in the blog. If you have any questions about the update or CloudXPRT
in general, please feel free to contact us!
developed our first cloud benchmark, CloudXPRT,
to measure the performance of cloud applications deployed on modern infrastructure
as a service (IaaS) platforms. When we first released CloudXPRT in
February of 2021, the benchmark included two test packages: a web microservices
workload and a data analytics workload. Both supported on-premises and cloud
service provider (CSP) testing with Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud
Platform (GCP), and Microsoft Azure.
is our most complex benchmark, requiring sustained compatibility between many
software components across multiple independent test environments. As vendors
roll out updates for some components and stop supporting others, it’s
inevitable that something will break. Since CloudXPRT’s launch, we’ve become
aware of installation failures while attempting to set up CloudXPRT on Ubuntu
virtual machines with GCP and Microsoft Azure. Additionally, while the web
microservices workload continues to run in most instances with a few
configuration tweaks and workarounds, the data analytics workload fails
consistently due to compatibility issues with Minio, Prometheus, and Kafka
within the Kubernetes environment.
response, we’re working to fix problems with the web microservices workload and
bring all necessary components up to date. We’re developing an updated test
package that will work on Ubuntu 22.04, using Kubernetes v1.23.7 and Kubespray
v2.18.1. We’re also updating Kubernetes Metrics Server from v1beta1 to v1, and will
incorporate some minor script changes. Our goal is to ensure successful
installation and testing with the on-premises and CSP platforms that we
supported when we first launched CloudXPRT.
are currently focusing on the web microservices workload for two reasons.
First, more users have downloaded it than the data analytics workload. Second, we
think we have a clear path to success. Our plan is to publish the updated web
microservices test package, and see what feedback and interest we receive from
users about a possible data analytics refresh. The existing data analytics workload
will remain available via CloudXPRT.com for the time being to serve as a
apologize for the inconvenience that these issues have caused. We’ll provide
more information about a release timeline and final test package details here
in the blog as we get closer to publication. If you have any questions about
the future of CloudXPRT, please feel free to contact us!
Back in March, we discussed
the WebXPRT 4 results submission process and reminded readers that everyone who
runs a WebXPRT 4
test is welcome to submit scores for us to consider for publication in the WebXPRT 4 results viewer.
Unlike sites that publish every result that users submit, we publish only
results that meet our evaluation criteria. Among other things, scores must be
consistent with general expectations and must include enough detailed system
information to help us assess whether individual scores represent valid test
runs. Today, we offer a couple of tips to increase the likelihood that we will
publish your WebXPRT 4 test results.
Tip 1: Specify your system’s processor
While testers usually include
detailed information for the device, model number, operating system, and
browser version fields, we receive many submissions with little to no information
about the test system’s processor.
In the picture below, you can see an example of the level of detail that we require to consider a submission. We need the full processor name, including the manufacturer and model number (e.g., Intel Core i9-9980HK, AMD Ryzen 3 1300X, or Apple M1 Max). Note that we do not require the processor speed reported by the system.
Tip 2: Include a valid email
It is also common for submissions
to not include a valid email address. While we understand the privacy concerns related
to submitting a personal or corporate email address, we need a valid address
that we can use as a point of contact to confirm test-related information when
necessary. We don’t use those addresses for any other purposes, such as selling
them, sharing them with any third parties, or adding them to a mailing list.
We hope this information explains why we might not have published your results. We look forward to receiving your future score submissions. If you have any questions about the submission process, please let us know!
Each month, we send a newsletter to members of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. In the newsletter, we recap the latest updates from the XPRT world and provide a summary of the previous month’s XPRT-related activity, including uses or mentions of the XPRTs in the tech press. More people read the weekly XPRT blog than receive the monthly newsletter, so we realized that some blog readers may be unaware of the wide variety of tech outlets that regularly use or mention the XPRTs.
So for today’s blog, we want to give readers a sampling of the XPRT press usage we see on a weekly basis. Recent mentions include:
Tom’s Guide used HDXPRT 4 to compare the performance of the Geekom Mini IT8 and Dell OptiPlex 7090 Ultra small-form-factor PCs.
Intel used WebXPRT 4 test data in promotional material for their line of 12th Gen) Intel Core processors(Alder Lake). Hundreds of press outlets then republished the presentation.
AnandTech used WebXPRT 4 to evaluate the Cincoze DS-1300 Industrial PC.
PCWorld used CrXPRT 2 to provide data for an article listing their top Chromebook recommendations.
TechPowerUp used WebXPRT 3 to compare the browser performance of Intel Core i9-12900KS processor-based systems and other Intel- and AMD processor-based systems.
Other outlets that have published articles, ads, or reviews mentioning the experts in the last few months include: Android Authority, ASUS, BenchLife, Gadgets 360, Good Gear Guide, Hardware.info, Hot Hardware, ITHardware (Poland), ITMedia (Japan), Itndaily (Russia), Mobile01.com (China), Notebookcheck, PCMag, ProClockers, Sohu.com (China), Tom’s Hardware, and Tweakers.
If you don’t currently receive the monthly
BenchmarkXPRT newsletter, but would like to join the mailing list, please let us know! We will not publish or sell any of the contact information you
provide, and will only send the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related
announcements such as patch notifications or new benchmark releases.
Recently, a tester contacted us with details from a CrXPRT 2 performance test run that they’d successfully completed on… an Apple MacBook Pro! Because CrXPRT 2 is a Chrome Web App that we designed for Chrome OS, it was quite a surprise to hear that it is now possible to run CrXPRT 2 on non-Chrome OS platforms by using FydeOS.
FydeOS is an operating system based on a fork of the Chromium OS project. Developers originally intended FydeOS to be a Google-independent, Chrome-like alternative for the Chinese educational market, but FydeOS is now available to the English-speaking consumer and enterprise markets as well. FydeOS users can run a Chrome-like OS on something other than a Chromebook or a Chromebox, such as a PC, Mac, virtual machine, or even a Raspberry Pi device. Additionally, FydeOS supports Android, Chrome OS, and Linux apps, and users can run those apps at the same time on the same screen.
We have not yet conducted any testing with FydeOS in our lab, but we wanted to pass along this information to any readers who may be interested. If the OS operates as described, it may provide a way for us to experiment with using CrXPRT 2 in some interesting cross-platform tests.
WebXPRT 4 has been available to testers since
the end of December, and we’re excited to see that the benchmark is already
gaining significant traction in the tech press and testing communities. Several
tech publications have already published reviews that feature WebXPRT results,
and the number of WebXPRT 4 runs is growing by about fifty percent each month, more
than twice the rate of growth for WebXPRT 3 after launch.
As WebXPRT 4 use continues to grow,
and more tech publications and OEM labs add WebXPRT 4 to their benchmark
suites, we encourage you to keep an eye on the WebXPRT 4 results viewer.
The viewer currently has about 120 test results, and we’ll continue to populate
the viewer with the latest PT-curated WebXPRT 4
results each week.
You don’t have to be a tech
journalist to publish a WebXPRT 4 result, however. We publish any results—including
individual user submissions—that meet our evaluation criteria. To submit a result
for publication consideration, simply follow the straightforward submission instructions
after the test completes. Scores must be consistent with general expectations and
must include enough detailed system information that we can determine whether
the score makes sense. If you’ve tested with WebXPRT 4 on a new device, or any
device or device configuration that’s not already present in the results
viewer, we encourage you to send in the result. We want to hear from you!