Automatic generation of layered queuing software performance models from commonly available traces

ABSTRACT

Performance models of software designs can give early warnings of problems such as resource saturation or excessive delays. However models are seldom used because of the considerable effort needed to construct them. Software Architecture and Model Extraction (SAME) is a lightweight model building technique that extracts communication patterns from executable designs or prototypes that use message passing, to develop a Layered Queuing Network model in an automated fashion. It is a formal, traceable model building process. The transformation follows a series of well-defined transformation steps, from input domain, (an executable software design or the implementation of software itself) to output domain, a Layered Queuing Network (LQN) Performance model. The SAME technique is appropriate for a message passing distributed system where tasks interact by point-to-point communication. With SAME, the performance analyst can focus on the principles of software performance analysis rather than model building.

REFERENCES

• 1: Vittorio Cortellessa , Raffaela Mirandola, Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams, Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, p.58-70, September 2000, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/350391.350406]
• 2: Norman Fenton , Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Software metrics (2nd ed.): a rigorous and practical approach, PWS Publishing Co., Boston, MA, 1997
• 3: G. Franks, S. Majumdar, J. Neilson, D. Petriu, J. Rolia, and M. Woodside. Performance Analysis of Distributed Server Systems, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Software Quality (6ICSQ), Ottawa, Ontario, 1996, pp. 15--26.
• 4: F. Hayes-Roth, and D. Waterman. Principles of pattern-directed interface systems. In D. Waterman and F. Hayes-Roth, editors, Pattern-Distributed Inference Systems, pages 577--601. Academic Press, 1978.
• 5: Curtis E. Hrischuk , Jerome A. Rolia , C. Murray Woodside, Automatic Generation of a Software Performance Model Using an Object-Oriented Prototype, Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, p.399-409, January 10-18, 1995
• 6: Curtis E. Hrischuk , C. Murray Woodside , Jerome A. Rolia , Rod Iversen, Trace-Based Load Characterization for Generating Performance Software Models, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.25 n.1, p.122-135, January 1999 [doi>10.1109/32.748921 ]
• 7: IBM, IBM Rational PurifyPlus for Windows: Quantify Component, http://www.pts.com/wp2292.cfm?det=y
• 8: T. A. Israr. Lightweight Technique for Extracting Software Architecture and Performance Models from Traces. Master's Thesis, Carleton University, 2001.
• 9: R. Jain, The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1991
• 10: R. Klar, A. Quick, F. Soetz, "Tools for a Model-driven Instrumentation for Monitoring", Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Modeling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation (TOOLS91), pp. 165--180 Elsevier, 1992.
• 11: C. L. Liu , James W. Layland, Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time Environment, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.20 n.1, p.46-61, Jan. 1973 [doi>10.1145/321738.321743]
• 12: Daniel A. Menascé , Hassan Gomaa, A Method for Design and Performance Modeling of Client/Server Systems, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.26 n.11, p.1066-1085, November 2000 [doi>10.1109/32.881718 ]
• 13: Object Management Group, UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/02-03-02, July 1, 2002.
• 14: The Open Group, Systems Management: Application Response Measurement (ARM) API, Technical Standard, July 1998.
• 15: Dorin C. Petriu , C. Murray Woodside, Software Performance Models from System Scenarios in Use Case Maps, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools, p.141-158, April 14-17, 2002
• 16: D. A. Reed, R. A. Aydt. R. J. Noe, P. C. Roth, K. A. Shields, B. Schwartz, and L. F. Tavera, Scalable Performance Analysis: The Pablo Performance Analysis Environment, Proc Scalable Parallel Libraries Conference, Starkville, MS, Oct. 1993, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 104--113
• 17: J. A. Rolia , K. C. Sevcik, The Method of Layers, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.21 n.8, p.689-700, August 1995 [doi>10.1109/32.403785 ]
• 18: W. Craig Scratchley , C. Murray Woodside, Evaluating Concurrency Options in Software Specifications, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, p.330, March 24-28, 1999
• 19: Murray Woodside , Curtis Hrischuk , Bran Selic , Stefan Bayarov, A wideband approach to integrating performance prediction into a software design environment, Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Software and performance, p.31-41, October 12-16, 1998, Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States [doi>10.1145/287318.287326]
• 20: Fahim Sheikh , Murray Woodside, Layered Analytic Performance Modelling of a Distributed Database System, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS '97), p.482, May 27-30, 1997
• 21: Connie U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1990
• 22: C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, Performance Solutions. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
• 23: C. Murray Woodside, Throughput calculation for basic stochastic rendezvous networks, Performance Evaluation, v.9 n.2, p.143-160, April 1989 [doi>10.1016/0166-5316(89)90039-4]

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
layered queuing, model building, performance engineering, software performance, tracing performance modeling