V. Amar, CORBA Benchmarks Results, http://www.beust.com/virginie/Benchmarks, 1999.  Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Overview of the CORBA Performance - Tuma, Buble (2002) (Correct)
....As implementations vary in features and performance, it became hard to choose the right one for the user. The features are usually evaluated easily by inspecting the vendor s web site, but the performance is hidden from user. To resolve this issue number ofbenchmarking projects appeared [1] 2][3][4] These differed in a number of aspects, including the range of the benchmarked functions, the setup of the benchmarking environment, and the presentation of the benchmarked results. This made the interpretation of the benchmarking results difficult, especially when it was necessary to relate ....
....attributes are often considered of secondary importance. This is because the projects are done in response to particular needs of the involved parties, and those needs rarely include openness. Thus, the projects might stop short of publishing complete results [4] 11] 12] 13] complete methodology [3], or complete sources [14] Even if published, the project results are generally difficult to interpret, and impossible to relate to each other. Our experience gathered in projects with MLC Systeme (now Deutsche Post Com) 4] 11] 12] 13] Bull Soft (now Evidian) 11] IONA Technologies, and ....
Amar, V., CORBA Benchmarks Results, http://www.beust. com/virginie/Benchmarks, 1999
Technical Report on Open CORBA Benchmarking - Tuma, Buble (2001) (Correct)
....in potentially heterogeneous and distributed environments. As the architecture developed and established itself as an industrial standard, a need for assessing the performance of its implementations became apparent [1] In response to this need, a number of benchmarking projects appeared [2] 3][4][13] These differed in a number of aspects, including the range of the benchmarked functions, the setup of the benchmarking environment, and the presentation of the benchmarked results. This made the interpretation of the benchmarking results difficult, especially when it was necessary to relate ....
....attributes are often considered of secondary importance. This is because the projects are done in response to particular needs of the involved parties, and those needs rarely include openness. Thus, the projects might stop short of publishing complete results [10] 11] 12] 13] complete methodology [4], or complete sources [14] Even if published, the project results are generally difficult to interpret, and impossible to relate to each other. This paper attempts to remedy the gap by generalizing our experience in the area of benchmarking CORBA middleware, gathered in projects with MLC Systeme ....
Amar, V., CORBA Benchmarks Results, http://www.beust.com/virginie/Benchmarks, 1999
On Benchmarking Object-oriented Communication Middleware - Buble, Tuma (2000) (Correct)
No context found.
V. Amar, CORBA Benchmarks Results, http://www.beust.com/virginie/Benchmarks, 1999.
Technical Report on Open CORBA Benchmarking - Tuma, Buble (Correct)
No context found.
Amar, V., CORBA Benchmarks Results, http://www.beust.com/virginie/Benchmarks, 1999
On Benchmarking Object-oriented Communication Middleware - Buble, Tuma (2000) (Correct)
No context found.
V. Amar, CORBA Benchmarks Results, http://www.beust.com/virginie/Benchmarks, 1999.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC