A unified tool for performance modelling and prediction

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 17-32

  Gilmore, Stephen ^a   Kloul, Leïla ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Multi terminal binary decision diagram; Performance evaluation process algebra; Performance modelling

Indexed keywords

ALGEBRA; BINARY CODES; COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES; DECISION THEORY; DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGES; MOBILE COMPUTING; PERFORMANCE; STOCHASTIC PROGRAMMING;

MOBILE TELEPHONY; MULTI-TERMINAL BINARY DECISION DIAGRAMS; PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS ALGEBRA; PERFORMANCE MODELING;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 17844375418     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.08.004     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. J.F. Meyer Closed-form solutions of performability IEEE Trans Comput 31-7 1982 648 657
2. Tigris.org project. ArgoUML: a modelling tool for design using UML. Web page and documentation at http://argouml.tigris.org ; 2002.
3. S. Gilmore, and J. Hillston The PEPA Workbench: a tool to support a process algebra-based approach to performance modelling Proceedings of the seventh international conference on modelling techniques and tools for computer performance evaluation, LNCS 794, Vienna, May 1994 p. 353-68; http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/pepa
4. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and D. Parker PRISM: probabilistic symbolic model checker T. Field P. Harrison J. Bradley U. Harder Proceedings of the 12th international conference on modelling techniques and tools for computer performance evaluation (TOOLS'02), London, April, LNCS 2324 2002 200 204
5. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language, v1.4. OMG document number: formal/2001-09-67, March; 2001.
6. J. Hillston A compositional approach to performance modelling 1996 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, MA
7. R. Alur, and T.A. Henzinger Reactive modules Formal Meth Syst Des: Int J 15-1 1999 7 48 July
8. C. Canevet, S. Gilmore, J. Hillston, M. Prowse, and P. Stevens Performance modeling with UML and stochastic process algebras IEE Proc: Comput Dig Tech 150 2 2003 107 120 March
9. Parker D. PRISM 1.3 User's Guide, University of Birmingham, http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dxp/prism, February; 2003.
10. Somenzi F. CUDD: CU Decision Diagram Package, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~fabio/CUDD/cuddIntro.html, February; 2001.
11. A. Aziz, K. Sanwal, V. Singhal, and R. Brayton Verifying continuous time Markov chains Computer-aided verification, LNCS 1102 1996 Springer Berlin p. 169-276
12. R. Milner, M. Tofte, R. Harper, and D. MacQueen The definition of standard ML: revised 1997 1997 The MIT Press New York
13. N. Benton, and A. Kennedy Interlanguage working without tears: blending SML with Java Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on functional programming, Paris, France, September 1999
14. M.D. Kulavaratharasah, and A.H. Aghvami Teletraffic performance evaluation of microcellular personal communication networks (PCN's) with prioritized handoff procedures IEEE Trans Vehicul Technol 48-1 1999 137 152
15. J.-M. Fourneau, L. Kloul, and F. Valois Performance modelling of hierarchical cellular networks using PEPA Perform Eval 50 2002 83 99
16. I. Katzela, and M. Naghshineh Channel assignment schemes for cellular mobile telecommunication systems: a comprehensive survey Proc IEEE 82-9 1994 1398 1430
17. D.C. Petriu, and H. Shen Applying the UML performance profile: graph grammar-based derivation of LQN models from UML specifications A.J. Field P.G. Harrison Proceedings of the 12th international conference on modelling tools and techniques for computer and communications system performance evaluation, LNCS 2324, London, April 2002 159 177
18. Selic B, Moore A, Woodside M, Watson B, Bjorkander M, Gerhardt M, et al. Response to the OMG RFP for schedulability performance, and time. OMG document number: ad/2001-06-14, June; 2001.
19. J.P. López-Grao, J. Merseguer, and J. Campos From UML activity diagrams to stochastic Petri nets: application to software performance analysis Proceedings of the seventeenth international symposium on computer and information sciences 2002 CRC Press Orlando, FL p. 405-9
20. S. Donatelli, J. Hillston, and M. Ribaudo A comparison of performance evaluation process algebra and generalized stochastic Petri nets Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on Petri nets and performance models, Durham, North Carolina 1995
21. C. Lindemann, A. Thümmler, A. Klemm, M. Lohmann, and O. Waldhorst Performance analysis of time-enhanced UML diagrams based on stochastic processes Proceedings of the third international workshop on software and performance (WOSP), Rome, Italy 2002 p. 25-34
22. S. Gilmore, J. Hillston, L. Kloul, and M. Ribaudo Software performance modelling using PEPA nets ACM SIGSOFT fourth international workshop on software and performance (WOSP'04), Redwood City, California, January 2004
23. S. Gilmore, J. Hillston, L. Kloul, and M. Ribaudo PEPA nets: a structured performance modelling formalism Perform Eval 54-2 2003 79 104 October