Parameter Dependent Performance Specifications of Software Components

  • Heiko Koziolek
  • Jens Happe
  • Steffen Becker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4214)


Performance predictions based on design documents aim at improving the quality of software architectures. In component-based architectures, it is difficult to specify the performance of individual components, because it depends on the deployment context of a component, which may be unknown to its developers. The way components are used influences the perceived performance, but most performance prediction approaches neglect this influence. In this paper, we present a specification notation based on annotated UML diagrams to explicitly model the influence of parameters on the performance of a software component. The UML specifications are transformed into a stochastical model that allows the prediction of response times as distribution functions. Furthermore, we report on a case study performed on an online store. The results indicate that more accurate predictions could be obtained with the newly introduced specification and that the method was able to support a design decision on the architectural level in our scenario.


Execution Time Performance Prediction Software Architecture Software Component Component Service 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Balsamo, S., DiMarco, A., Inverardi, P., Simeoni, M.: Model-based performance prediction in software development: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(5), 295–310 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, S., Grunske, L., Mirandola, R., Overhage, S.: Performance prediction of component-based systems – A survey from an engineering perspective. In: Reussner, R., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C. (eds.) Architecting Systems with Trustworthy Components. LNCS, vol. 3938, pp. 169–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, S., Reussner, R.: The Impact of Software Component Adaptation on Quality of Service Properties. L’objet 12(1), 105–125 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertolino, A., Mirandola, R.: CB-SPE Tool: Putting Component-Based Performance Engineering into Practice. In: Crnković, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3054, pp. 233–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bondarev, E., de With, P., Chaudron, M., Musken, J.: Modelling of input-parameter dependency for performance predictions of component-based embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 31th EUROMICRO Conference (EUROMICRO 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doerner, K., Gutjahr, W.: Representation and optimization of software usage models with non-markovian state transitions. Information & Software Technology 42(12), 873–887 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Firus, V., Becker, S., Happe, J.: Parametric performance contracts for QML-specified software components. In: Proceedings of FESCA 2005. ENTCS, pp. 64–79 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamlet, D., Mason, D., Woit, D.: Component-Based Software Development: Case Studies. In: Properties of Software Systems Synthesized from Components. Series on Component-Based Software Development, vol. 1, pp. 129–159. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koziolek, H., Happe, J.: A qoS driven development process model for component-based software systems. In: Gorton, I., Heineman, G.T., Crnković, I., Schmidt, H.W., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4063, pp. 336–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koziolek, H., Firus, V.: Parametric performance contracts: Non-markovian loop modelling and an experimental evaluation. In: Proceedings of FESCA 2006. ENTCS (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marzolla, M.: Simulation-Based Performance Modeling of UML Software Architectures. PhD thesis, Universit‘a Ca Foscari di Venezia (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group OMG. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (2005),
  13. 13.
    Reussner, R., Becker, S., Firus, V.: Component composition with parametric contracts. In: Tagungsband der Net.ObjectDays 2004, pp. 155–169 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sitaraman, M., Kuczycki, G., Krone, J., Ogden, W.F., Reddy, A.L.N.: Performance specification of software components. In: Proc. of SSR 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, C.U.: Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide To Creating Responsive, Scalable Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, C.U.: Performance Engineering of Software Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu, X., Woodside, M.: Performance modeling from software components. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 29(1), 290–301 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Koziolek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jens Happe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steffen Becker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School TrustsoftUniversity of OldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Chair for Software Design and QualityUniversity of KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations