Automating Performance Analysis from Taverna Workflows

  • Rafael Tolosana-Calasanz
  • Omer F. Rana
  • José A. Bañares
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5282)


Workflow systems provide support for combining components to achieve a particular outcome. Various approaches from software engineering have been utilized within such systems, such as the use of design patterns to support composition, and the use of a software engineering lifecycle to support workflow construction and execution. As components used within a workflow may be implemented by third parties, it is often necessary to be able to determine the impact a particular component composition will have on the overall execution of a workflow. A method for predicting the execution time of a given workflow is proposed. First, the method obtains a model from a given workflow in an automated way. The model obtained is a Reference net – a specific type of Petri net. Features of Reference nets can subsequently be exploited, such as the possibility of building hierarchical workflow models which can facilitate the modelling process. The Reference nets are extended so that each task in the model is parameterised with a time value, representing the execution time of the task. We propose several timing profiles: those obtained from real measurement of the workflow system, from stochastic and constant values which allow us to test the model behaviour under specific situations.


Workflow Performance Models Petri Nets 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Mulyar, N.: Workflow control-flow patterns: A revised view. Technical report, BPM Center Report BPM-06 22, (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tolosana-Calasanz, R., Bañares, J.A., Álvarez, P., Ezpeleta, J.: Vega: a service-oriented grid workflow management system. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part II. LNCS, vol. 4804. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kummer, O., Wienberg, F., Duvigneau, M., Schumacher, J., Köhler, M., Moldt, D., Rölke, H., Valk, R.: An extensible editor and simulation engine for petri nets: Renew. In: Cortadella, J., Reisig, W. (eds.) ICATPN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3099, pp. 484–493. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of IEEE 77, 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valk, R.: Petri nets as token objects - an introduction to elementary object nets. In: Desel, J., Silva, M. (eds.) ICATPN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1420, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alt, M., Hoheisel, A.: Petri Nets. In: Workflows for e-Science, pp. 190–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A., Miller, J., Arnold, J., Kochut, K.: Quality of service for workflows and web service processes. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 1(3), 281–308 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menasce, D.A., Gomaa, H.: A method for design and performance modeling of client/server systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(11), 1066–1085 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernardo, M., Ciancarini, P., Donatiello, L.: Aempa: a process algebraic description language for the performance analysis of software architectures. In: WOSP 2000: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 1–11. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J.: Performance evaluation of uml design with stochastic well-formed nets. J. Syst. Softw. 80(11), 1843–1865 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu, Z., Shatz, S.M.: Mapping uml diagrams to a petri net notation for system simulation. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2004), pp. 213–219 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: Model-based performance prediction with the palladio component model. In: WOSP 2007: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 54–65. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamlet, D.: Software component composition: a subdomain-based testing-theory foundation. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 17(4), 243–269 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aalst, W.M.P., Lassen, K.B.: Translating workflow nets to bpel. Technical report. In: BETA Working Paper Series, WP145, Eindhoven University of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Workflow patterns: On the expressive power of (petri-net-based) workflow languages. In: Proc. of the Fourth International Workshop on Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and the CPN Tools, Aarhus, Denmark, Technical Report DAIMI PB-560, pp. 1–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aho, A.V., Lam, M.S., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compiler: Principles, Techniques and Tools, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, London (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turi, D., Missier, P., Goble, C., Roure, D.D., Oinn, T.: Taverna workflows: Syntax and semantics. In: E-SCIENCE 2007: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 441–448. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Tolosana-Calasanz
    • 1
  • Omer F. Rana
    • 2
  • José A. Bañares
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Investigación en Ingeniería de Aragón (I3A) Department of Computer Science and Systems EngineeringUniversity of ZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCardiff UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations