Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 339–355 | Cite as

Performance Analytic Models and Analyses for Workflow Architectures

  • Kwang-Hoon Kim
  • Clarence A. Ellis
Article

Abstract

The design and implementation of a workflow management system is typically a large and complex task. Decisions need to be made about the hardware and software platforms, the data structures, the algorithms, and network interconnection of various modules utilized by various users and administrators. These decisions are further complicated by requirements such as flexibility, robustness, modifiability, availability, performance, and usability. As the size of workflow systems increases, organizations are finding that the standard server/client architectures, and off-the-shelf solutions are not adequate. We can further see that in the future, very large-scale workflow systems (VLSW) will become more complex, and more prevalent. Thus, one further requirement is an emphasis of this document: scalability. For the purposes of our scalable workflow investigations, we describe a framework, a taxonomy, a model, and a methodology to investigate the performance of various workflow architectures as the size of the system (number of workcases) grows very large.

First, this paper presents a novel workflow architectural framework and taxonomy. We survey some example current workflow products and research prototype systems, illustrating some of the taxonomical categories. In fact, most current workflow architectures fall into only one of the many categories of this taxonomy: the centralized server/client category. The paper next explains a performance analysis methodology useful for exploring this taxonomy. The methodology deploys a layered queuing model, and performs mathematical analysis on this model using a modified MOL (method of layers) combined with a linearization algorithm. Finally, the paper utilizes this methodology to compare and contrast the various architectural categories, providing interesting results about performance as the number of workcases increases. Our analytic results suggest that (a) for VLSW performance determination, software architecture is as important as hardware architecture, and (b) alternatives to the client server architecture provide significantly better scalability.

distributed workflow taxonomy of workflow architectures scalability performance workflow performance analysis performance analytic models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso D et al. Failure handling in large scaleworkflowmanagement systems. IBM Research Report RJ9913, Nov. 1994.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso D et al. Exotica/FMQM: A persistent message based architecture for distributed workflow management. In: Proceedings of the IFIPSWorking Conference on Information Systems for Decentralized Organizations, Aug. 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Chandy KM, Doug N. Linearizer: A heuristic algorithm for queuing network models of computing systems. Communication of the ACM 1999;25(2).Google Scholar
  4. Ellis CA, Morris P. The information control nets model. Performance Evaluation Review 1979;8(3).Google Scholar
  5. Ellis C. Team automata. In: Proceedings of the ACMGroup'97 Conference, Nov. 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis C, Maltzahn C. Chautauqua: A flexible workflow system. In: Proceedings of the 30th HICSS Conference, Jan. 1997.Google Scholar
  7. Ellis C, Kim K. A framework and taxonomy for workflow architectures. In: The Fourth International Conference on Design for Cooperative Systems, May 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Jablonski S, Bussler C. MOBILE: A modular workflow model and architecture. University of Erlangen Internal Report, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. Kim K. Practical experience on workflow: Hiring process automation by flowmark. IBM Internship Report, IBM/ISSC, Boulder Colorado, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. Kim K. Architectures for very large scale workflow management systems. PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Colorado at Boulder, May 1998.Google Scholar
  11. Miller A et al. CORBA based run time architectures for workflow management systems. LSDIS Internal Lab. Report, University of Georgia, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. Perry D, Wolf A. Foundations for the study of software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 1992;17(4).Google Scholar
  13. Podgurski A, Clarke LA. A formal model of program dependencies and its implications for software testing, debugging, and maintenance. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 1990;16(9).Google Scholar
  14. Rolia JA. Predicting the performance of software systems, Technical Report CSRI-260, Computer Science Research Institute, University of Toronto, Jan. 1992.Google Scholar
  15. Rolia JA, Sevcik KC. The method of layers. IEEE Transaction On Software Engineering 1995;21(8).Google Scholar
  16. Wallnau K, Long F, Earl A. Toward a distributed mediated architecture for enterprise-wide workflow management. In: Proceedings of the NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation, May 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Weissenfels J et al. An overview of the mentor architecture for enterprise wide workflow management. In: Proceedings of the NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation, May 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kwang-Hoon Kim
    • 1
  • Clarence A. Ellis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKyonggi University SanSuwon, KyonggidoSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations