This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Systems: Systems engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

While it is current practice to refer to performance as a non-functional requirement, performance was considered a functional requirement in the OS/MFT and MVT era. Source: University of Windsor assembler-course instructor, circa 1980.

In particular, we were required to pre-declare resource requirements needed to achieve a performance level, which we were expected to state in job time for batch and response time for a specified load in TP.

If uptime is legitimately a functional requirement, then if only 1/2 the required performance is available, then the system is as damaged as if it were down 50% of the working day.

[email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecb (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's partly to do with the definition of "functional requirement". The modern definition, in the way that defines performance as a "non-functional requirement", seems to use the word "functional" in the sense of "describing the desired functions of the system" (i.e. what it actually does), as opposed to performance as "ensuring that the system delivers those functions" (i.e. whether it actually does it). To my mind, it separates functional yes/no questions of "can the system do x?" (where x is strictly defined as something that either it does or doesn't do) from non-functional questions of "can the system do x in y seconds?" (which is open to changing the goalposts of how big or small y is). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be written from the point of view of someone NOT in the industry. The article should be accessible to anyone who reads at the eighth grade level, and should explain terms without industry jargon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.5.125 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Performance engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120211011904/http://channel9.msdn.com:80/wiki/default.aspx/PerformanceWiki.PerformanceEngineering to http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/PerformanceWiki.PerformanceEngineering

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]