Performance prediction upon toolchain migration in model-based software
Authors: 
Aymen Ketata, Carlos Moreno, Sebastian Fischmeister, Jia Liang, Krzysztof CzarneckiAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 302 - 311
Abstract
Changing the development environment can have severe impacts on the system behavior such as the execution-time performance. Since it can be costly to migrate a software application, engineers would like to predict the performance parameters of the application under the new environment with as little effort as possible.
In this paper, we concentrate on model-driven development and provide a methodology to estimate the execution-time performance of application models under different toolchains. Our approach has low cost compared to the migration effort of an entire application. As part of the approach, we provide methods for characterizing model-driven applications, an algorithm for generating application-specific microbenchmarks, and results on using different methods for estimating the performance. In the work, we focus on SCADE as the development toolchain and use a Cruise Control and a Water Level application as case studies to confirm the technical feasibility and viability of our technique.
References
[1]
A. W. Appel. Verified Software Toolchain. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Programming Languages and Systems: Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ESOP'11/ETAPS'11, pages 1--17, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. Springer-Verlag.
[2]
K. Bak, K. Czarnecki, and A. Wasowski. Feature and meta-models in clafer: mixed, specialized, and coupled. In Software Language Engineering, pages 102--122. Springer, 2011.
[3]
S. Balsamo, A. di Marco, P. Inverardi, and M. Simeoni. Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 30(5):295--310, May 2004.
[4]
G. Berry. SCADE: Synchronous Design and Validation of Embedded Control Software. In S. Ramesh and P. Sampath, editors, Next Generation Design and Verification Methodologies for Distributed Embedded Control Systems, pages 19--33. Springer Netherlands, 2007.
[5]
A. J. Canty. Resampling methods in r: the boot package. R News, 2(3):2--7, 2002.
[6]
J.-L. Colaço and M. Pouzet. Type-based Initialization Analysis of a Synchronous Data-flow Language. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 65(5):65 -- 78, 2002. SLAP'2002, Synchronous Languages, Applications, and Programming (Satellite Event of {ETAPS} 2002).
[7]
S. D. Conte, H. E. Dunsmore, and Y. E. Shen. Software Engineering Metrics and Models. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1986.
[8]
T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein. Introduction to Algorithms, Third Edition. The MIT Press, 2009.
[9]
A. B. de Oliveira, J.-C. Petkovich, T. Reidemeister, and S. Fischmeister. Datamill: Rigorous performance evaluation made easy. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering, pages 137--148. ACM, 2013.
[10]
M. K. Debbarma, S. Debbarma, N. Debbarma, K. Chakma, and A. Jamatia. A Review and Analysis of Software Complexity Metrics in Structural Testing. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, 2:129--133, 2013.
[11]
F.-X. Dormoy. SCADE 6: a model based solution for safety critical software development. In Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Embedded Real Time Software (ERTS'08), pages 1--9, 2008.
[12]
L. du Bousquet, M. Delaunay, H.-V. Do, and C. Robach. Analysis of testability metrics for Lustre/SCADE programs. In Advances in System Testing and Validation Lifecycle (VALID), 2010 Second International Conference on, pages 26--31. IEEE, 2010.
[13]
K. Falkner, V. Chiprianov, N. Falkner, C. Szabo, J. Hill, G. Puddy, D. Fraser, A. Johnston, M. Rieckmann, and A. Wallis. Model-Driven Performance Prediction of Distributed Real-Time Embedded Defense Systems. In Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS), 2013 18th International Conference on, pages 155--158, July 2013.
[14]
N. E. Fenton and M. Neil. Software metrics: successes, failures and new directions. Journal of Systems and Software, 47(2--3):149--157, 1999.
[15]
N. E. Fenton and M. Neil. Software Metrics: Roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering, ICSE '00, pages 357--370, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM.
[16]
M. Fritzsche and J. Johannes. Putting Performance Engineering into Model-Driven Engineering: Model-Driven Performance Engineering. In H. Giese, editor, Models in Software Engineering, volume 5002 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 164--175. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
[17]
J. Grundy, Y. Cai, and A. Liu. Softarch/mte: Generating distributed system test-beds from high-level software architecture descriptions. Automated Software Engineering, 12(1):5--39, 2005.
[18]
M. P. Heimdahl. Safety and software intensive systems: Challenges old and new. In 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pages 137--152. IEEE Computer Society, 2007.
[19]
S. Henry and D. Kafura. Software structure metrics based on information flow. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, (5):510--518, 1981.
[20]
R. Holmes and D. Notkin. Identifying program, test, and environmental changes that affect behaviour. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 371--380. ACM, 2011.
[21]
Y. Liu, I. Gorton, and A. Fekete. Design-level performance prediction of component-based applications. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 31(11):928--941, 2005.
[22]
T. Mens and P. V. Gorp. A Taxonomy of Model Transformation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 152(0):125 -- 142, 2006. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformation (GraMoT 2005) Graph and Model Transformation 2005.
[23]
K. Ors and B. Laszlo. SCADE interpreter for measuring static and dynamic software metrics. In Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY), 2013 IEEE 11th International Symposium on, pages 123--128, Sept 2013.
[24]
G. Pandey, J. Jelschen, and A. Winter. Towards quality models in software migration. analysis, 1:M2.
[25]
L. M. Rose, M. Herrmannsdoerfer, J. R. Williams, D. S. Kolovos, K. Garcés, R. F. Paige, and F. A. Polack. A comparison of model migration tools. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 61--75. Springer, 2010.
[26]
F. Rossi, P. Van Beek, and T. Walsh. Handbook of constraint programming. Elsevier, 2006.
[27]
M. Shepperd and D. Ince. A critique of three metrics. Journal of Systems and Software, 26(3):197 -- 210, 1994.
[28]
R. E. Walpole, R. H. Myers, S. L. Myers, and K. Ye. Probability & Statistics for Engineers & Scientists. Prentice-Hall, Ninth edition, 2011.
[29]
Q. Zhu and P. Deng. Design Synthesis and Optimization for Automotive Embedded Systems. In Proceedings of the 2014 on International Symposium on Physical Design, ISPD '14, pages 141--148, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
Recommendations
Machine Learning Approach for Live Migration Cost Prediction in VMware Environments
CLOSER 2019: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services ScienceVirtualization became a commonly used technology in datacenters during the last decade. Live migration is an essential feature in most of the clusters hypervisors. Live migration process has a cost that includes the migration time, downtime, IP network ...
A parallel migration scheme for fast virtual machine relocation on a cloud cluster
The paper proposes a method for parallelizing migrations to reduce the time required for virtual machine (VM) relocation. During VM relocation, VMs need to wait for their migrations in a chain due to the limited resource of the physical machines (PMs), ...
Transparent, Live Migration of a Software-Defined Network
SOCC '14: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud ComputingIncreasingly, datacenters are virtualized and software-defined. Live virtual machine (VM) migration is becoming an indispensable management tool in such environments. However, VMs often have a tight coupling with the underlying network. Hence, cloud ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- IEEE CS
Publisher
IEEE Press
Publication History
Published: 30 September 2015
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
MODELS '15
Sponsor:
MODELS '15: ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems
September 30 - October 2, 2015
Ontario, Ottawa, Canada
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 144 of 506 submissions, 28%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 17Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)1
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 17 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in