Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 169–180 | Cite as

Short-term performance management by priority-based queueing

  • Christian MarklEmail author
  • Oliver Hühn
  • Martin Bichler
Special Issue Paper


Service-based IT infrastructures serve many different business processes on a shared infrastructure in parallel. The automated request execution on the interconnected software components, hosted on heterogeneous hardware resources, is typically orchestrated by distributed transaction processing (DTP) systems. While pre-defined quality-of-service metrics must be met, IT providers have to deal with short-term demand fluctuations. Adaptive prioritization is a way to react to short-term demand variances. Performance modeling can be applied to predict the impact of prioritization on the overall performance of the system. In this paper, we describe the workload characteristics and particularities of two real-world DTP systems and evaluate the effects of prioritization regarding overall load and end-to-end performance measures.


Performance modeling IT service management Transaction processing Prioritization Capacity management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Oracle Corporation (2009) Oracle tuxedo, oracle data sheet. Online accessed 19 Apr 2010
  2. 2.
    Vitria Technology (2006) Business ware, business process integration for SOA & event driven architectures. Online accessed 19 Apr 2010
  3. 3.
    TIBCO Software (2008) TIBCO activemartix businessworks, Online accessed 19 Apr 2010
  4. 4.
    Markl C, Hühn O (2009) Evaluation of prioritization in performance models of DTP systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE conference on commerce and enterprise computing (CEC), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruh WA, Brown WJ, Maginnis FX (2000) Enterprise application integration: a wiley tech brief. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Distributed Transaction: (1991) The XA specification. X/Open Company Ltd, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson JH, Keating B (2002) Business forecasting with accompanying excel-based forecastXTM software. McGraw-Hill, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winters PR (1960) Forecasting sales by exponentially weighted moving averages. In: INFORMSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bailey DH, Snavely A (2005) Performance modeling: understanding the present and predicting the future. In: Euro-Par 2005 Parallel Processing, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Menasce DA, Dowdy LW, Almeida VAF (2004) Performance by design: computer capacity planning by example. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bolch G et al (2006) Queueing networks and markov chains—modeling and performance evaluation with computer science applications, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fishman GS (2001) Discrete-event simulation: modeling, programming, and analysis. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hühn O, Markl C (2007) PerMoTo—Performance modelling tool suite. In: WITS 07—seventeenth annual workshop on information technologies and systems, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hühn O, Markl C, Bichler M (2009) On the predictive performance of queueing network models for large-scale distributed transaction processing systems. Inf Technol Manag 10(2–3): 135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krishnamurthy D (2006) A synthetic workload generation technique for stress testing session-based systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 32(11): 868–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    TPC (2009) TPC transaction processing performance council. Online accessed 17 Oct 2009
  17. 17.
    Feitelson DG (2002) Workload modeling for performance evaluation. In: Performance evaluation of complex systems: techniques and tools 2459/2002:114–141Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feitelson DG (2002) The forgotten factor: facts on performance evaluation and its dependence on workloads. In: Euro-Par: Proceedings of the 8th international Euro-Par conference on parallel processing, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stewart C, Kelly T, Zhang A (2007) Exploiting nonstationarity for performance prediction. In: EuroSys: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European conference on computer systems, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noel E, Tang KW (2000) Performance modeling of multihop network subject to uniform and nonuniform geometric traffic. In: IEEE/ACM transactions on networking (TON)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thakkar SS, Schweiger M (1990) Performance of an OLTP application on symmetry multiprocessor system. In: 17th annual international symposium on computer architecture, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mazzucco M, Mitrani I, Palmer J, Fisher M, McKee P (2007) Web service hosting and revenue maximization. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE European conference on web services (ECOWS), Halle, Germany, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen Y et al (2007) SLA decomposition: translation service level objectives to system level thresholds. In: ICAC’07: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on autonomic computing : IEEE computer society, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steward C, Shen K (2005) Performance modeling and system management for multi-component online services. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on symposium on networked systems design & implementation, Vol 2, pp 71–84Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Urgaonkar B et al (2005) An analytical model for multi-tier internet services and its applications. In SIGMETRICS’05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on measurement and modeling of computer systems, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghanwani A, Gelenbe E (1998) Approximate analysis of a dynamic priority queueing method for ATM networks. In: PICS 98— Seventh international conference on performance of information and communication systems, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee D, Sengupta B (1993) Queueing analysis of a threshold based priority scheme for ATM networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 1(6): 709–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katayama T, Kobayashi K (2007) Analysis of a nonpreemptive priority queue with exponential timer and server vacations. Perform Eval 64: 495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations