The deployment process itself isn't complex for us. Typically, the solution teams handle deployments using their own tools. We just test after the deployment is done. We're not really involved in the deployment itself.

We recently upgraded LoadRunner Enterprise from the previous version. It was definitely complex. There was the infrastructure upgrade as well as the licensing upgrade. We also have to have a different set of load generators, controllers, and other things. It was a complete switch, so it took time and was complex.

It offers flexible deployment options, including on-prem, SaaS, and hybrid, which is very important for us. The reason is that we are migrating our applications from on-premises to the cloud. When we test applications in the cloud, one major aspect or component that we need to consider is network utilization. If your load generators are on-premises and you are hitting from on-premises to the applications hosted in the cloud, network bandwidth consumption will come into the picture, and your response time will include that. It is sometimes acceptable in real-case or production scenarios, but it is sometimes not acceptable because the systems that will access the particular service that is under test may or may not be hosted in the cloud itself. In that scenario, I have to have a solution that I can directly hit in the cloud itself. In that case, I would like to have LoadRunner Cloud. At the moment, we are looking at using the Flex model of LoadRunner infrastructure deployment, which means we will have load generators on-premises as well as in the cloud.

The setup process is straightforward and easily manageable even by a junior technician.

The initial setup was carried out before I began working in the company but I believe it's very straightforward. We have 70 performance engineers using this solution in my team. 

The installation was quick, however, getting integration and getting the data flowing, that's tricky. We need to rely entirely on the Micro Focus team for that. It's not like we can do it in-house. Though we know how to install it, there are a lot of complications when we try to go through it. 

We had three people deploy the solution and two people are available for maintenance. 

The initial setup is complex. Our implementation of LoadRunner Enterprise is incredibly complex. We use a number of third-party tools to enforce and manage its continued running outside of what LoadRunner provides.

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

The solution was deployed on the cloud.

The initial setup process is straightforward for a simple type of server architecture. But if you are integrating separate test generator engines between the setups, it will require support from the supplier. It is important to have a strong understanding of performance-testing concepts. 

We install Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise in our local systems.

The installation process is a little complex. There has been confusion in terms of the Enterprise version and whatever they have in the exhibition suite. We call it ALM. The UI is not as user-friendly now with the changes they have made. It would help if they simplified their interface a bit. It might make implementation easier. 

It used to be simpler. Now we have a separate team that handles the setup.

We have two people available that can deploy and maintain the product.

I have been involved in the upgrades. If it is a patch or something small, it is less time-consuming, but if it is a major upgrade, it takes more time and more planning. We need to assess how long it will take, what resources are needed, and do we need to request new servers.

The initial setup is easy because I have already spent seven to eight years.

First of all, we need a license key. Then, we need to download the LoadRunner Enterprise software. We require specific specifications. The machines should have a minimum amount of RAM and CPU. We need to fulfil three requests before we can download the LoadRunner file. The installation usually takes around three to four hours.

We have a separate team for support. For example, if we require more CPU, RAM, or drive size on an IBM machine, we seek support from them. However, one person is sufficient for the installation and setup process.

There is another team responsible for maintenance.

The deployment was complex. It is very important to us that LoadRunner offers flexible deployment options. I want to be able to deploy the solution in a fashion that is in the best interest of my organization.

The implementation was very straightforward. 

I'd rate the process four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. 

In terms of how easy or complex setting up Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is, I'm not the right person to ask because a different team handles the setup in my company. The solution is set up on the cloud, on-demand, and requires load generators or controllers, but I didn't take part in setting it up. I'm just an end-user that utilizes Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

The installation is very problematic and not that straightforward. We have had so many problems.

The initial setup is straightforward and usually takes a couple of hours to complete.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to set up, record, and use. We have a department that is responsible for deployment.

I give the deployment a ten out of ten.

We have become very accustomed to the product, using it as long as we have. We have never come across any kind of difficulty and we have received support from the vendor whenever we have required help.

Our migration to LoadRunner Cloud happened in 2018, and took approximately six months. Our company was being cautious because we wanted to ensure business continuity, so we went for a phased project migration approach.

We went with that approach because there were multiple aspects that needed to be taken care of, from a security standpoint. We had to get required clearances because we needed to open certain ports and firewalls. That took some time. Once that was cleared, we did a proof of concept and quickly started moving projects in a phased manner, and we haven't seen many difficulties since then.

For me, the initial setup is straightforward — I've done it a few times now.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes around fifteen minutes.

I have not set up other tools, so I don't have a basis for comparison. That said, I find that setting up LoadRunner Enterprise is not very straightforward.

Whether it's an initial setup or an upgrade to our existing setup, it's very time-consuming. There are lots of things that we have to look into and understand throughout the process. It takes a lot of time and resources and that is one of the reasons we are considering moving to the cloud version. Ideally, our effort in upgrading to the newer versions is reduced by making the transition. The last couple of upgrades have been very consuming in terms of time and effort, which could have been spent on more productive work.

To be clear, I was not involved in setting it up initially. Each time we deploy this product, we set it up as a new one but use our older version as a base. Prior to the configuration, we have to update it. However, it is older and it does not upgrade, so we have to install it as a new version. I do not see a significant difference in time between installing afresh and upgrading an existing installation.

If I am able to identify the needs and what is required, from that point, it takes almost the same amount of time whether it is a clean install or an upgrade. The biggest challenge with LoadRunner Enterprise is to identify the database that we're using and then upgrade it. As soon as the database is upgraded successfully, 70% to 75% of the work is complete. It is the biggest component, takes the longest, and is the most effort-consuming as well.

This is complex. We are hosting some of the components in the Deloitte network. The clients or the projects have to set up their own load generators. You have to configure firewall rules. We have to install these agents and point them at our environment to connect and troubleshoot connectivity issues. And every client has a different need. If you're behind a VPN - the app that you're testing - or it's inside the client network, that introduces some challenges. Just by the nature of the tool and what you're doing, it is complex.

It has many tiers, it's not a single system thing. You definitely have to take the time to architect it correctly, to have a full topology. I've done it a few times.

I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. It can be completed in two to three days. 

I was not included in the process when they installed the solution, but it took quite a lot more time than I would have expected. I guess, based partly on the length of time it took, that it was not very straightforward to set up and must have been a bit difficult. The other reason it does not seem easy is that the team has tried to upgrade now two times now and both times they had to roll back to the previous version. We'll see when a fix is issued and they try to upgrade again if the issue is solved. It looks like there are problems with connecting properly. The team has a ticket in with Micro Focus about the problem, but we are not sure what the problem stems from and a resolution has not been provided.

The biggest issue is that ALM is a thick client and you can't patch it, because you've got hundreds and hundreds of PCs. Several different standards are on people's PCs. You can’t do it. You leave it until there's a big release and then you take a massive program to deliver it. Get rid of that thick client bit and you could patch on the server and it could be up and running the next day. Which is the neat bit about Octane.

The setup of Performance Center seems fairly reasonable. No real shakes about it. Obviously, you've got to have VuGen on the PC. It tends to have to be a meaty PC, but then you are running performance tests. My biggest challenge with Performance Center is having people who claim to do performance testing or know how do to performance testing and they're still wet behind the ears.
A good performance tester needs to have a good 18 months experience with them. They need to have done things with Performance Center. Delivered projects. They need to use SiteScope. They need to use analysis tools on that network. They need to know how to get the best value out of the tool. Somebody who's just come for the first time has probably done a week or two-week training course and says, "I know how to performance test."
They get results back and say, "We ran it for a 100 users and it failed." Well, okay, where did it fail? Where's the analysis that helps us fix the problem? And we didn't get that, which they would have done if they'd known to implement the additional bits like SiteScope against it.

So, with Performance Center, it's a skill issue for the people that are using it. Again, one of my guys says, “I’d like to see people be able to grade themselves in Performance Center or even in performance testing, "I'm at a Bronze level. I'm at a Silver level. I'm at a Gold level." Then you know how effective that person is going to be.

It was straightforward initially with v8.1 and various FPs for 8.1. However it was very complex with v10. It was due to the way our security suites were designed that made it very complex. The design stage took one month, and implementation was two months, and we had one month dedicated support from offshore.

It was straightforward.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup but I've been involved in all the upgrades. They've done it multiple times. Each upgrade seems to be adding a lot more features. It seems like the pace of development has picked up in the last couple years especially, and we've been impressed with the direction that the product's going.

The upgrades actually were fairly complex for my team. The last one, they were actually giving up for a while. It turned out that there were some database versions that were incompatible. Eventually, once we were able to get connected with the support, we were able to get most of it worked out.

There was a big upgrade with the 12.5 version that was a little slower. But everything else has been very smooth since then. Still, it's difficult. Everybody's come to count on that software being at a certain version.

I didn't work on the installation of 11.5, but right now I'm working on version 12.

Internally, we have a lot of planning to do on our side, like a database upgrade, LGs, all that stuff but we are coordinating that with HPE and Micro Focus and making sure that our timelines and their timelines match. And we do have upgrade licenses, which should be pretty good to go.

I would say the relations between us and Micro Focus is straightforward because all we are looking at is basically license upgrades. On our side, it's more complex because we have to internally work with various teams to coordinate all this activity.

I have set up many, many instances of Performance Center. Recently, it's much more straightforward. A long time ago it was very complex. But it's pretty straightforward. You set up the application center, you set up your generators, you set up your controllers, database.

I have an entire team, so I'm a director and I have an entire tools team that does that. I did get involved in the planning and the strategy of how we're going to do it. My team said that first installation is relatively easy. When we go to upgrade and migrate, that's where there's pain.

We were challenged in out setup, making it more complex, because we didn't us HP cloud and were using AWS instead. Some of the connections weren't set up properly.

It was straightforward.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. But I have got to say, having worked on-and-off with LoadRunner over a period of time, I knew kind of instinctively how to set it up after a while. In other words, in my case, I would say it was simple. On the other hand, I think it the first time I tried to set it up it was a nightmare. After that, it was easy because I learned a lot about it. If I had to score it out of ten for initial setup with ten being the best, it would probably be seven-out-of-ten. It is not really going to be super easy for first-timers to deploy.  

I was involved in it. I'd say it was fairly straightforward for us because we used our support partner to help us out, guide us through some of the pitfalls of the initial setup. But he gave us a two-week timeframe that he said we'd be able to get it set up in, and we easily had it set up within a week.

Generally, the initial setup has not been much of a problem. If you have some level of intermediate knowledge on networks as well as some quick training on LoadRunner, you should be able to set it up within a week or two.

It is not exactly straightforward. Their instructions were not all they could have been, but we still got it installed.

It was not complex, but I needed to consult HP support a couple of times for clarification and for help in registering the load injectors.

The initial setup is straightforward when following the installation guide steps.

Performance Center 12.x is compatible with a very specific set of operating system, database, hardware, and file system options. The installation process scans for those exact options, and will not proceed even if a slight variation is detected. By comparison, the previous 11.x could be configured to use Oracle 11g (the free, development version of the database), useful when testing a trial version of the software. Now, the supported options are a bit more rigid, but still the installation process is remarkably straightforward. I have a reasonable technical background, and after working through a couple specific challenges I have now installed and configured the application half a dozen times.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, it was pre-existing. We use Performance Center, but as the HPE ALM piece is managed by a separate tools group, that's a challenge because we don't have control over the whole implementation.

I've assisted with the Performance Center upgrade piece a little bit, installing it, but in general, we have a whole separate group that does it.

The initial setup was really reasonably straightforward. We pretty much just followed the installation guide.

Straightforward. Very easy to do.

I was not involved in the deployment of any of the instances of Performance Center that I have used. However, I have been involved in three different upgrades for three different clients. 

When Performance Center is managed properly with proper maintenance, there were no issues with upgrades. I have seen instances of script corruption, user access difficulties and project corruption. 

It is necessary to have an experienced Performance Center administrator providing regular maintenance.

The initial setup is fine. Deploying LoadRunner is quick but to set up the performance testing itself takes a lot of time.

It was fairly straightforward, but determining how many servers were needed to host the application took some time to suss out. Performance Center is a resource-intensive app with many “moving parts” or components to consider.

It was a bit complex in terms of administration but we got help from technical people.

Initial set-up of the product was a little bit complex, and setting up the servers was little difficult.

There were no issues with the implementation process. It was okay.

Pretty straightforward.

The initial setup was OK, wasn't too complex.

complex

I was not involved in the initial setup and I have no idea how it went. We're not allowed to fiddle around with installations.

Complex in installation with many server/mc configurations.

I believe that the setup was quite easy as I was able to proceed without facing any hurdles. The interface was pretty easy and helpful.

It’s fairly easy and straightforward. With the current version, 12.0 and above, it looks and feels complicated, and not user friendly to implement.

It is straightforward.