Static Inference of Transmission Data Sizes in Distributed Systems

  • Elvira Albert
  • Jesús Correas
  • Enrique Martin-Martin
  • Guillermo Román-Díez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8803)

Abstract

We present a static analysis to infer the amount of data that a distributed system may transmit. The different locations of a distributed system communicate and coordinate their actions by posting tasks among them. A task is posted by building a message with the task name and the data on which such task has to be executed. When the task completes, the result can be retrieved by means of another message from which the result of the computation can be obtained. Thus, the transmission data size of a distributed system mainly depends on the amount of messages posted among the locations of the system, and the sizes of the data transferred in the messages. Our static analysis has two main parts: (1) we over-approximate the sizes of the data at the program points where tasks are spawned and where the results are received, and (2) we over-approximate the total number of messages. Knowledge of the transmission data sizes is essential, among other things, to predict the bandwidth required to achieve a certain response time, or conversely, to estimate the response time for a given bandwidth. A prototype implementation in the SACO system demonstrates the accuracy and feasibility of the proposed analysis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agha, G.: Actors: A Model of Concurrent Computation in Distributed Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert, E., Arenas, P., Flores-Montoya, A., Genaim, S., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Martin-Martin, E., Puebla, G., Román-Díez, G.: SACO: Static Analyzer for Concurrent Objects. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 562–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert, E., Arenas, P., Genaim, S., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Puebla, G.: Cost Analysis of Concurrent OO programs. In: Yang, H. (ed.) APLAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7078, pp. 238–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albert, E., Arenas, P., Genaim, S., Puebla, G.: Closed-Form Upper Bounds in Static Cost Analysis. Journal of Automated Reasoning 46(2), 161–203 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albert, E., Flores-Montoya, A.E., Genaim, S.: Analysis of May-Happen-in-Parallel in Concurrent Objects. In: Giese, H., Rosu, G. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7273, pp. 35–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armstrong, J., Virding, R., Wistrom, C., Williams, M.: Concurrent Programming in Erlang. Prentice Hall (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic Discovery of Linear Restraints Among Variables of a Program. In: POPL. ACM Press (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Boer, F.S., Clarke, D., Johnsen, E.B.: A Complete Guide to the Future. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 316–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gulwani, S., Mehra, K.K., Chilimbi, T.M.: Speed: Precise and Efficient Static Estimation of Program Computational Complexity. In: Proc. of POPL 2009, pp. 127–139. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haller, P., Odersky, M.: Scala actors: Unifying thread-based and event-based programming. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410(2-3), 202–220 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnsen, E.B., Hähnle, R., Schäfer, J., Schlatte, R., Steffen, M.: ABS: A Core Language for Abstract Behavioral Specification. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 142–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, J.K., Palsberg, J.: Featherweight x10: a core calculus for async-finish parallelism. SIGPLAN Not. 45(5), 25–36 (2010), 1693459Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milanova, A., Rountev, A., Ryder, B.G.: Parameterized Object Sensitivity for Points-to Analysis for Java. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 14, 1–41 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shapiro, M., Horwitz, S.: Fast and Accurate Flow-Insensitive Points-To Analysis. In: Proc. of POPL 1997, Paris, France, pp. 1–14. ACM (January 1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sridharan, M., Bodík, R.: Refinement-based context-sensitive points-to analysis for Java. In: PLDI, pp. 387–400 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zuleger, F., Gulwani, S., Sinn, M., Veith, H.: Bound analysis of imperative programs with the size-change abstraction. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) SAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6887, pp. 280–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elvira Albert
    • 1
  • Jesús Correas
    • 1
  • Enrique Martin-Martin
    • 1
  • Guillermo Román-Díez
    • 2
  1. 1.DSICComplutense University of MadridSpain
  2. 2.DLSIISTechnical University of MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations