CLIF, a framework based on Fractal for flexible, distributed load testing

  • Bruno DillensegerEmail author


The context of this work is performance evaluation of IT systems based on load testing. It typically consists in generating a flow of requests on a system under test, and to measure response times, request throughput, or computing resource usage. A quick overview of available load testing platforms shows that there exist hundreds of such platforms, including in the open source domain. However, many testers still tend to develop their own ad hoc load testing tooling. Why? This paper starts by looking for possible answers to this question, in order to introduce the CLIF load injection framework, which intends not to be yet another load testing platform. Based on the Fractal component model, the CLIF open source project aims at addressing key issues such as flexibility, adaptation, and scalability. We give here details about CLIF’s architecture and associated tools as well as some feedback from a bunch of practical utilizations.


Performance evaluation Load testing Load injection Distributed system Component-based software engineering 



A great number of coworkers at France Telecom deserve a lot of thanks: managers supporting Fractal and CLIF as open source projects, as well as users and developers using, improving and extending the framework. Thanks also to the ObjectWeb community who supported the CLIF project. Thanks to all the contributors of CLIF, Fractal, and LeWYS projects. Thanks also to the many other open source projects CLIF relies on, not to be just a framework but a real load testing platform.

This work is supported by the French ANR through the RNTL Selfware project, and by the European IST Selfman project.


  1. 1.
    Barros T et al (2006) Extension of the Fractal ADL for the Specification of Behaviours of Distributed Components, poster presentation at the 5th Fractal Workshop (part of ECOOP‘06), July 3rd, 2006, Nantes, France, JulGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batista T, Joolia A, Coulson G (2005) Managing Dynamic Reconfiguration in Component-based Systems. In Proc. EWSA 2005, LNCS 3527, pp. 1–17, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beauvois M (2003) Brenda: towards a composition framework for non-orthogonal non-functional properties. Proc of DAIS 2003, LNCS 2893:29–40Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouchenak S et al (2006) Autonomic management of clustered applications. IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, Barcelona, Spain, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruneton E et al (2004) An open component model and its support in Java. Seventh International Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE-7). LNCS 3054:7–22 MayGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cecchet E et al (2005) Implementing Probes for J2EE Cluster Monitoring. Studia Informatica, 4(1)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clif project,
  8. 8.
    Collet P et al (2005) A Contracting System for Hierarchical Components. In Proceedings of the Component-Based Software Engineering, 8th International Symposium (CBSE‘2005), vol. 3489, pages 187–202, Springer, St-Louis (Missouri), USA, 14–15 MayGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    David P-C, Ledoux T (2006) Safe Dynamic Reconfigurations of Fractal Architectures with FScript. Proceeding of Fractal CBSE Workshop, ECOOP‘06, Nantes, France, JulyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dillenseger B, Cecchet E (2003) JMOB latest news, introducing CLIF. ObjectWeb Conference, Roquencourt (France), NovemberGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dillenseger B (2007) The CLIF load testing platform and its utilization at Orange Labs. Training And Research On Testing (TAROT) Summer School, Grenoble, JulyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eclipse Test & Performance Tools Platform project,
  13. 13.
    Garlan D, Monroe R, Wile D (2000) ACME: architectural description of component-based systems. Foundations of Component-based Systems, Cambridge University Press, pp 47–68Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halili EH (2008) Apache Jmeter, A practical beginner’s guide to automated testing and performance measurement for your websites. PACKT Publishing, ISBN 1847192955, JuneGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harbaoui A et al (2008) Performance characterization of black boxes with self-controlled load injection for simulation-based sizing. Conférence Française sur les Systèmes d’Exploitation (CFSE‘6), Fribourg (Switzerland), FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coupaye T et al (2007) Principes architecturaux pour la construction de systèmes autonomiques ouverts. In: Krief F. and Salaün M. (eds) L’autonomie dans les réseaux (Traité IC2 série Réseaux et télécommunications), chapter 11, Hermès-LavoisierGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jain R (1991) The art of computer systems performance analysis. Wiley Professional ComputingGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Leclercq M, Quema V, Stefani J-B (2005) DREAM: a Component Framework for the Construction of Resource-Aware, Configurable MOMs. IEEE Distributed Systems Online, 6(9) SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JH, Lee D (2006) Description technique for component composition focusing on black-box view. Proc of ICCSA 2006, LNCS 3983:994–1002 SpringerGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Plasil F, Visnovsky S (2002) Behavior Protocols for Software Components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(11), NovGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rivierre N, Coupaye T (2003) Observing component behaviors with temporal logic. In 8th ECOOP Workshop on Correctness of Model-Based Software Composition (CMC‘03)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salomé-TMF project,
  25. 25.
    Smith CU, Williams LG (2000) Software Performance AntiPatterns. Proceedings 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance, ACM, pp 127–136, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Szyperski C (2002) Component Software, 2nd edn. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Varoquaux E (2005) Ecriture en Java d’un moteur d’exécution optimisé de scénarios d’injection de charge pour une plate-forme de mesure de performances. Internship report France Telecom/ENSIMAG, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verlaine L, Hardange F, Biard F, Elias D (2003) Tests de performance des applications web-retours d’expérience: l’usine e-testing de France Télécom, EyrollesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut TELECOM and Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orange LabsGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations