Towards Performance Tooling Interoperability: An Open Format for Representing Execution Traces
- 491 Downloads
Execution traces capture information on a software system’s runtime behavior, including data on system-internal software control flows, performance, as well as request parameters and values. In research and industrial practice, execution traces serve as an important basis for model-based and measurement-based performance evaluation, e.g., for application performance monitoring (APM), extraction of descriptive and prescriptive models, as well as problem detection and diagnosis. A number of commercial and open-source APM tools that allow the capturing of execution traces within distributed software systems is available. However, each of the tools uses its own (proprietary) format, which means that each approach building on execution trace data is tool-specific.
In this paper, we propose the (OPEN.xtrace) format to enable data interoperability and exchange between APM tools and (SPE) approaches. Particularly, this enables SPE researchers to develop their approaches in a tool-agnostic and comparable manner. OPEN.xtrace is a community effort as part of the overall goal to increase interoperability of SPE/APM techniques and tools.
In addition to describing the OPEN.xtrace format and its tooling support, we evaluate OPEN.xtrace by comparing its modeling capabilities with the information that is available in leading APM tools.
KeywordsExecution Trace Distribute Software System Method Execution Tool Vendor Default Implementation
This work is being supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01IS15004, diagnoseIT), by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the Priority Programme “DFG-SPP 1593: Design For Future—Managed Software Evolution” (HO 5721/1-1, DECLARE), and by the Research Group of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC RG, http://research.spec.org). Special thanks go to Alexander Bran, Alper Hidiroglu, and Manuel Palenga — Bachelor’s students at the University of Stuttgart — for their support in the evaluation of the APM tools.
- 1.AppDynamics—Application Performance Monitoring and Management. https://www.appdynamics.com/
- 2.CA—Application Performance Management. http://www.ca.com/us/products/ca-application-performance-management.html
- 3.Dynatrace—Application Monitoring. http://www.dynatrace.com/en/application-monitoring/
- 4.IBM—Application Performance Management. http://www.ibm.com/middleware/us-en/knowledge/it-service-management/application-performance-management.html
- 5.Logging control in W3C httpd. https://www.w3.org/Daemon/User/Config/Logging.html
- 6.New Relic APM. https://newrelic.com/application-monitoring
- 7.Riverbed—Application Performance Monitoring. http://www.riverbed.com/de/products/steelcentral/application-performance-management.html
- 8.Ammons, G., Ball, T., Larus, J.R.: Exploiting hardware performance counters with flow and context sensitive profiling. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1997 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 1997), pp. 85–96 (1997)Google Scholar
- 9.Binz, T., Breitenbücher, U., Kopp, O., Leymann, F.: TOSCA: portable automated deployment and management of cloud applications. In: Advanced Web Services, pp. 527–549 (2014)Google Scholar
- 10.Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice, 1st edn. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, Williston (2012)Google Scholar
- 11.Brosig, F., Huber, N., Kounev, S.: Automated extraction of architecture-level performance models of distributed component-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011), pp. 183–192 (2011)Google Scholar
- 14.Distributed Management Task Force: Common Information Model (CIM) Standard, February 2014. http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/
- 15.Elarde, J.V., Brewster, G.B.: Performance analysis of application response measurement (ARM) version 2.0 measurement agent software implementations. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference (IPCCC 2000), pp. 190–198 (2000)Google Scholar
- 16.Fittkau, F., Finke, S., Hasselbring, W., Waller, J.: Comparing trace visualizations for program comprehension through controlled experiments. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2015), pp. 266–276 (2015)Google Scholar
- 17.Heger, C., van Hoorn, A., Okanović, D., Siegl, S., Wert, A.: Expert-guided automatic diagnosis of performance problems in enterprise applications. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC 2016). IEEE (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
- 18.van Hoorn, A., Waller, J., Hasselbring, W.: Kieker: a framework for application performance monitoring and dynamic software analysis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE 2012), pp. 247–248 (2012)Google Scholar
- 20.Jacob, B., Lanyon-Hogg, R., Nadgir, D., Yassin, A.: A Practical Guide to the IBM Autonomic Computing Toolkit. IBM, Indianapolis (2004)Google Scholar
- 23.Kowall, J., Cappelli, W.: Magic quadrant for application performance monitoring (2014)Google Scholar
- 25.NovaTec Consulting GmbH: inspectIT. http://www.inspectit.eu/
- 27.Rohr, M., van Hoorn, A., Giesecke, S., Matevska, J., Hasselbring, W., Alekseev, S.: Trace-context sensitive performance profiling for enterprise software applications. In: Proceedings of the SPEC International Performance Evaluation Workshop (SIPEW 2008), pp. 283–302 (2008)Google Scholar
- 28.SPEC Research Group: OPEN—APM interoperability initiative (2016). http://research.spec.org/apm-interoperability/
- 29.Vögele, C., van Hoorn, A., Schulz, E., Hasselbring, W., Krcmar, H.: WESSBAS: extraction of probabilistic workload specifications for load testing and performance prediction–a model-driven approach for session-based application systems. J. Softw. Syst. Model. (2016). Under revisionGoogle Scholar
- 30.Walter, J., van Hoorn, A., Koziolek, H., Okanovic, D., Kounev, S.: Asking “what”?, automating the “how”?: the vision of declarative performance engineering. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/SPEC on International Conference on Performance Engineering, pp. 91–94. ICPE 2016. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
- 31.Woodside, C.M., Petriu, D.C., Petriu, D.B., Shen, H., Israr, T., Merseguer, J.: Performance by unified model analysis (PUMA). In: Proceedings of the 5th Internation Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2005), pp. 1–12 (2005)Google Scholar