A Model Transformation from the Palladio Component Model to Layered Queueing Networks

  • Heiko Koziolek
  • Ralf Reussner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5119)


For component-based performance engineering, software component developers individually create performance specifications of their components. Software architects compose these specifications to architectural models. This enables assessing the possible fulfilment of performance requirements without the need to purchase and deploy the component implementations. Many existing performance models do not support component-based performance engineering but offer efficient solvers. On the other hand, component-based performance engineering approaches often lack tool support. We present a model transformation combining the advanced component concepts of the Palladio Component Model (PCM) with the efficient performance solvers of Layered Queueing Networks (LQN). Joining the tool-set for PCM specifications with the tool-set for LQN solution is an important step to carry component-based performance engineering into industrial practice. We validate the correctness of the transformation by mapping the PCM model of a component-based architecture to an LQN and conduct performance predictions.


Performance Prediction Model Transformation Resource Demand Loop Body System Deployer 
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 Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(5), 295–310 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, S.: Coupled Model Transformations. In: Proc. 7th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2008), ACM Sigsoft (June 2008) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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., Szyperski, C. (eds.) Architecting Systems with Trustworthy Components. LNCS, vol. 3938, pp. 169–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: Model-based Performance Prediction with the Palladio Component Model. In: Proc. 6th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2007), pp. 56–67. ACM Sigsoft (February 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bondarev, E., de With, P., Chaudron, M., Musken, J.: Modelling of Input-Parameter Dependency for Performance Predictions of Component-Based Embedded Systems. In: Proc. of the 31th EUROMICRO Conference (EUROMICRO 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chouambe, L., Klatt, B., Krogmann, K.: Reverse Engineering Software-Models of Component-Based Systems. In: Proc. of the 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2008), Athens, Greece, IEEE, Los Alamitos (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Ambrogio, A.: A model transformation framework for the automated building of performance models from UML models. In: Proc. 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2005), pp. 75–86. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eskenazi, E., Fioukov, A., Hammer, D.: Performance Prediction for Component Compositions. In: Crnković, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3054. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franks, G.: Performance Analysis of Distributed Server Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (December 1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grassi, V., Mirandola, R., Sabetta, A.: Filling the gap between design and performance/reliability models of component-based systems: A model-driven approach. Journal on Systems and Software 80(4), 528–558 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gu, G.P., Petriu, D.C.: From UML to LQN by XML algebra-based model transformations. In: Proc. 5th International workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2005), pp. 99–110. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Happe, J., Friedrichs, H., Becker, S., Reussner, R.: A Configurable Performance Completion for Message-Oriented Middleware. In: Proc. 7th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2008). ACM Sigsoft (June 2008) (to Appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kappler, T., Koziolek, H., Krogmann, K., Reussner, R.: Towards Automatic Construction of Reusable Prediction Models for Component-Based Performance Engineering. In: Proc. Software Engineering 2008 (SE 2008), LNI, GI (February 2008) (to appear)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kounev, S.: Performance Modeling and Evaluation of Distributed Component-Based Systems Using Queueing Petri Nets. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 32(7), 486–502 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koziolek, H.: Parameter Dependencies for Reusable Performance Specifications of Software Components. PhD thesis, University of Oldenburg, Germany (March 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koziolek, H., Becker, S., Happe, J.: Predicting the Performance of Component-based Software Architectures with different Usage Profiles. In: Proc. 3rd International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures (QoSA 2007). LNCS, vol. 4880, pp. 145–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu, Y., Fekete, A., Gorton, I.: Design-level performance prediction of component-based applications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(11), 928–941 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group (OMG). UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (2005) (last retrieved 2008-01-13)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group (OMG). MOF QVT final adopted specification (ptc/05-11-01) (2006) (last retrieved 2008-01-13)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petriu, D.B., Woodside, M.: An intermediate metamodel with scenarios and resources for generating performance models from UML designs. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling 6(2), 163–184 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petriu, D.C., Woodside, C.M.: Software Performance Models from System Scenarios in Use Case Maps. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petriu, D.C., Shen, H.: Applying the UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar-Based Derivation of LQN Models from UML Specifications. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 159–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Real-Time and Distributed Systems Group, Carleton University. Layered Queueing Network Documentation (last retrieved 2008-01-13)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rolia, J.A., Sevcik, K.C.: The method of layers. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(8), 689–700 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, C.U.: Performance Engineering of Software Systems. Addision-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szyperski, C., Gruntz, D., Murer, S.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ufimtsev, A., Murphy, L.: Performance modeling of a JavaEE component application using layered queuing networks: revised approach and a case study. In: Proc. International Workshop on Specification and Verification of Component-based Systems (SAVCBS 2006), pp. 11–18. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verdickt, T., Dhoedt, B., De Turck, F., Demeester, P.: Hybrid Performance Modeling Approach for Network Intensive Distributed Software. In: Proc. 6th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2007). ACM Sigsoft Notes, pp. 189–200 (February 2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Woodside, M., Franks, G., Petriu, D.: The Future of Software Performance Engineering. In: Future of Software Engineering (FOSE 2007), pp. 171–187. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Woodside, M., Petriu, D.C., Petriu, D.B., Shen, H., Israr, T., Merseguer, J.: Performance by unified model analysis (puma). In: WOSP 2005: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 1–12. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu, X., Woodside, M.: Performance Modeling from Software Components. In: Proc. 4th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2004), vol. 29, pp. 290–301. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Koziolek
    • 1
  • Ralf Reussner
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School TrustsoftUniversity of OldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Chair for Software Design and QualityUniversity of KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations