Advertisement

Predicting the Performance of Component-Based Software Architectures with Different Usage Profiles

  • Heiko Koziolek
  • Steffen Becker
  • Jens Happe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4880)

Abstract

Performance predictions aim at increasing the quality of software architectures during design time. To enable such predictions, specifications of the performance properties of individual components within the architecture are required. However, the response times of a component might depend on its configuration in a specific setting and the data send to or retrieved from it. Many existing prediction approaches for component-based systems neglect these influences. This paper introduces extensions to a performance specification language for components, the Palladio Component Model, to model these influences. The model enables to predict response times of different architectural alternatives. A case study on a component-based architecture for a web portal validates the approach and shows that it is capable of supporting a design decision in this scenario.

Keywords

Execution Time Performance Prediction Service Level Agreement Resource Demand Component Parameter 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The AspectJ Homepage, http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/
  2. 2.
    Baccelli, F., Balbo, G., Boucherie, R.J., Campos, J., Chiola, G.: Annotated bibliography on stochastic petri nets. Performance Evaluation of Parallel and Distributed Systems Solution Methods 105, 1–24 (1994)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balsamo, S., Marco, A.D., 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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: Model-based Performance Prediction with the Palladio Component Model. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2007), ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Bondarev, E., With, P.d., 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
  8. 8.
    Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.J.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Eclipse Series. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eskenazi, E., Fioukov, A., Hammer, D.: Performance prediction for component compositions. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Component-based Software Engineering (CBSE7) (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Firus, V., Becker, S., Happe, J.: Parametric Performance Contracts for QML-specified Software Components. In: Formal Foundations of Embedded Software and Component-based Software Architectures (FESCA). ETAPS 2005. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 141, pp. 73–90 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    GlassFish Open Source Java EE 5 Application Server, https://glassfish.dev.java.net/
  12. 12.
    Grassi, V., Mirandola, R., Sabetta, A.: From Design to Analysis Models: a Kernel Language for Performance and Reliability Analysis of Component-based Systems. In: WOSP 2005: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 25–36. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 (March 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Happe, J., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: Parametric Performance Contracts for Software Components with Concurrent Behaviour. In: de Boer, F.S., Mencl, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2006), Prague, Czech Republic. Electronical Notes in Computer Science (September 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katoen, J.-P., D’Argenio, P.R.: General Distributions in Process Algebra. In: Lectures on Formal Methods and Performance Analysis: First EEF/Euro Summer School on Trends in Computer Science Berg en Dal, The Netherlands, July 3-7, 2000, vol. 2090, p. 375. Springer, Heidelberg (2001), (Revised Lectures)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koziolek, H., Happe, J.: A Quality of Service Driven Development Process Model for Component-based Software Systems. In: Gorton, I., Heineman, G.T., Crnkovic, I., Schmidt, H.W., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C.A., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4063, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koziolek, H., Happe, J., Becker, S.: Parameter dependent performance specification of software components. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnkovic, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 163–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lazowska, E.D., Zahorjan, J., Graham, G.S., Sevcik, K.C.: Quantitative System Performance - Computer System Analysis Using Queueing Network Models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Massey Jr., F.J.: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46(253), 68–78 (1951)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menasce, D.A., Almeida, V.A.F., Dowdy, L.W.: Performance by Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Mof 2.0 core specification (formal/2006-01-01) (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reussner, R.H., Becker, S., Happe, J., Koziolek, H., Krogmann, K., Kuperberg, M.: The Palladio Component Model. Technical report, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH) (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reussner, R.H., Schmidt, H.W., Poernomo, I.: Reliability prediction for component-based software architectures. Journal of Systems and Software – Special Issue of Software Architecture – Engineering Quality Attributes 66(3), 241–252 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolia, J.A., Sevcik, K.C.: The method of layers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(8), 689–700 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, C.U., Williams, L.G.: Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, C.U.: Performance Engineering of Software Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szyperski, C., Gruntz, D., Murer, S.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd edn. ACM Press and Addison-Wesley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verdickt, T., Dhoedt, B., Turck, F.D., Demeester, P.: Hybrid Performance Modeling Approach for Network Intensive Distributed Software. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2007). ACM Sigsoft Notes, pp. 189–200 (February 2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Koziolek
    • 1
  • Steffen Becker
    • 1
  • Jens Happe
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School Trustsoft University of Oldenburg, Germany and, Chair for Software Design and Quality, University of KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations