Advertisement

Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 177–179 | Cite as

Performance Management Work

  • Andreas Brunnert
  • Christian Vögele
  • Alexandru Danciu
  • Matthias Pfaff
  • Manuel Mayer
  • Helmut Krcmar
Catchword

Performance Management Work as a Continuous Task

Performance is a key quality factor of application systems (AS). AS performance is quantified by the metrics response time, resource utilization, and throughput (Becker et al. 2013). To guarantee AS performance, it is important to define quantifiable performance goals using performance metrics. These metrics have to be continuously measured and evaluated. Based on these metrics, activities can be defined to ensure that performance goals are met. The coordination and execution of all activities required to achieve performance goals during system development are described by the term software performance engineering (SPE) (Woodside et al. 2007). Corresponding activities during operation are typically referred to as application performance management (APM) (Menascé 2002). An isolated consideration of SPE and APM neglects their interrelation. The combination of SPE and APM activities is therefore summarized by the term performance...

Keywords

Application System Performance Metrics Performance Goal Operation Phase Life Cycle Phase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Becker S, Hasselbring W, van Hoorn A, Reussner R (eds) (2013) Proceedings of the symposium on software performance: joint Kieker/Palladio days. CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 1083, Karlsruhe, CEUR-WS.org Google Scholar
  2. Brandl R, Bichler M, Ströbel M (2007) Cost accounting for shared it infrastructures – estimating resource utilization in distributed it architectures. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 49:83–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EU (2013) European e-competence framework version 2.0. http://www.ecompetences.eu/
  4. Grabski B, Günther S, Herden S, Krüger L, Rautenstrauch C, Zwanziger A (2007) Very large business applications. Informatik-Spektrum 30(4):259–263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Humble J, Molesky J (2011) Why enterprises must adopt DevOps to enable continuous delivery. Cutter IT Journal 24(8):6–12 Google Scholar
  6. Jamshidi M (2011) System of systems engineering: innovations for the twenty-first century. Wiley series in systems engineering and management, vol 58. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  7. Koziolek H (2010) Performance evaluation of component-based software systems: a survey. Performance Evaluation 67(8):634–658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Menascé DA (2002) Load testing, benchmarking, and application performance management for the web. In: Proceedings of the computer measurement group conference (CMG), Reno, pp 271–282 Google Scholar
  9. Schmietendorf A (2001) Prozess-Konzepte zur Gewährleistung des Software-Performance-Engineerings in großen IT-Organisationen. In: Dumke R (ed) Magdeburger Schriften zum empirischen Software Engineering. Shaker Verlag, Aachen Google Scholar
  10. Vaquero LM, Rodero-Merino L, Buyya R (2011) Dynamically scaling applications in the cloud. Computer Communication Review 41(1):45–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Woodside M, Franks G, Petriu DC (2007) The future of software performance engineering. In: Future of software engineering (FOSE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 171–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Brunnert
    • 1
  • Christian Vögele
    • 1
  • Alexandru Danciu
    • 1
  • Matthias Pfaff
    • 1
  • Manuel Mayer
    • 2
  • Helmut Krcmar
    • 2
  1. 1.fortiss GmbH, An-Institut Technische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Chair for Information SystemsTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations