Software performance modeling using UML and Petri nets

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2965, Issue , 2004, Pages 265-289

  Merseguer, José ^a   Campos, Javier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; PETRI NETS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS; SURVEYS;

REAL-TIME OPERATION; SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE ENGINEERINGS; SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE MODELING; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; STOCHASTIC PETRI NETS; UML DIAGRAMS;

REAL TIME SYSTEMS;

EID: 21144433479     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24663-3_13     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Balbo, G. Conte, S. Donatelli, and G. Franceschinis, Modelling with generalized stochastic Petri nets, John Wiley Series in Parallel Computing - Chichester, 1995.
2. F. Aquilani, S. Balsamo, and P. Inverardi, Performance analysis at the software architectural design level, Performance Evaluation 45 (2001), 147-178.
3. S. Bernardi, Building Stochastic Petri Net models for the verification of complex software systems, Ph.D. thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, April 2003.
4. S. Bernardi, S. Donatelli, and J. Merseguer, From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable Petri net models, Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2002) (Rome, Italy), ACM, July 2002, pp. 35-45.
5. G. Berthelot, Transformations and decompositions of nets, Advances in Petri Nets 1986 - Part I (W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 254, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, pp. 359-376.
6. F.P. Brooks, Essence and accidents of software engineering, IEEE Computer 20 (1987), no. 4, 10-19.
7. J. Campos, G. Chiola, and M. Silva, Properties and performance bounds for closed free choice synchronized monoclass queueing networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 36 (1991), no. 12, 1368-1382.
8. J. Campos, S. Donatelli, and M. Silva, Structured solution of asynchronously communicating stochastic modules, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25 (1999), no. 2, 147-165.
9. G. Chiola, C. Anglano, J. Campos, J. M. Colom, and M. Silva, Operational analysis of timed Petri nets and application to the computation of performance bounds, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models (Toulouse, France), IEEE-Computer Society Press, October 1993, pp. 128-137.
10. J. M. Colom and M. Silva, Improving the linearly based characterization of P/T nets, Advances in Petri Nets 1990 (G. Rozenberg, ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 483, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991, pp. 113-145.
11. V. Cortellessa and R. Mirandola, Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams, in Woodside et al. [46], pp. 58-70.
12. M. de Miguel, T. Lambolais, M. Hannouz, S. Betge, and S. Piekarec, UML extensions for the specification of latency constraints in architectural models, in Woodside et al. [46], pp. 83-88.
13. E. Dominguez, A.L. Rubio, and M.A. Zapata, Dynamic semantics of UML state machines: A metamodelling perspective, Journal of Database Management 13 (2002), 20-38.
14. R. Dumke, C. Rautenstrauch, A. Schmietendorf, and A. Scholz (eds.), Performance engineering, state of the art and current trends, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2047, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001.
15. H. Gomaa and D. Menascé, Design and performance modeling of component interconnection patterns for distributed software architectures, in Woodside et al. [46], pp. 117-126.
16. ∼greatspn.
17. H. Hermanns, U. Herzog, and Katoen J.P., Process algebra for performance evaluation, Theoretical Computer Science 274 (2002), no. 1-2, 43-87.
18. P. Inverardi, S. Balsamo, and Selic B. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Software and Performance, Rome, Italy, ACM, July 24-26 2002.
19. I. Jacobson, M. Christenson, P. Jhonsson, and G. Overgaard, Object-oriented software engineering: A use case driven approach, Addison-Wesley, 1992.
20. K. Kant, Introduction to computer system performance evaluation, Mc Graw-Hill, 1992.
21. P. King and R. Pooley, Using UML to derive stochastic Petri nets models, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual UK Performance Engineering Workshop (J. Bradley and N. Davies, eds.), Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, July 1999, pp. 45-56.
22. J. P. López-Grao, J. Merseguer, and J. Campos, From UML activity diagrams to stochastic PNs: Application to software performance engineering, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP'04) (Redwood City, California, USA), ACM, January 2004, To appear.
23. J. Merseguer, Software performance engineering based on UML and Petri nets, Ph.D. thesis, University of Zaragoza, Spain, March 2003.
24. J. Merseguer, S. Bernardi, J. Campos, and S. Donatelli, A compositional semantics for UML state machines aimed at performance evaluation, Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems (Zaragoza, Spain) (A. Giua and M. Silva, eds.), IEEE Computer Society Press, October 2002, pp. 295-302.
25. J. Merseguer and J. Campos, Exploring roles for the UML diagrams in software performance engineering, Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP'03) (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA), CSREA Press, June 2003, pp. 43-47.
26. J. Merseguer, J. Campos, and E. Mena, A pattern-based approach to model software performance, in Woodside et al. [46], pp. 137-142.
27. _, A performance engineering case study: Software retrieval system, in Dumke et al. [14], pp. 317-332.
28. _, Analysing internet software retrieval systems: Modeling and performance comparison, Wireless Networks: The Journal of Mobile Communication, Computation and Information 9 (2003), no. 3, 223-238.
29. M. K. Molloy, Performance analysis using stochastic Petri nets, IEEE Transactions on Computers 31 (1982), no. 9, 913-917.
30. Object Management Group, http:/www.omg.org.
31. Object Management Group, http:/www.omg.org, UML Profile for Schedulabibity, Performance and Time Specification, March 2002.
32. Object Management Group, http:/www.omg.org, OMG Unified Modeling Language specification, March 2003, version 1.5.
33. th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models (Zaragoza, Spain), IEEE Computer Society Press, September 1999, pp. 32-41.
34. D. Petriu and H. Shen, Applying the UML performance profile: Graph grammar-based derivation of LQN models from UML specifications, Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools 12th International Conference, TOOLS 2002 (London, UK) (Tony Field, Peter G. Harrison, Jeremy Bradley, and Uli Harder, eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2324, Springer, April 14-17 2002, pp. 159-177.
35. R. Pooley and P. King, The Unified Modeling Language and performance engineering, IEE Proceedings Software, IEE, February 1999, pp. 2-10.
36. ArgoUML project, http://argouml.tigris.org.
37. J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, E. Frederick, and W. Lorensen, Object oriented modeling and design, Prentice-Hall, 1991.
38. A. Schmietendorf and A. Scholz, Aspects of performance engineering - An overview, in Dumke et al. [14], pp. IX-XII.
39. M. Silva, Las redes de Petri en la automática y la informática, Editorial AC, Madrid, 1985, In Spanish.
40. C. U. Smith, Performance engineering of software systems, The Sei Series in Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1990.
41. C.U. Smith, Increasing information systems productivity by software performance engineering, Proceedings of the Seventh International Computer Measurement Group Conference (New Orleans, LA, USA) (D.R. Deese, R.J. Bishop, J.M. Mohr, and H.P. Artis, eds.), Computer Measurement Group, December 1-4 1981, pp. 5-14.
42. _, Origins of software performance engineering: Highlights and outstanding problems, in Dumke et al. [14], pp. 96-118.
43. C.U. Smith and Ll.G. Williams, Software performance antipatterns, in Woodside et al. [46], pp. 127-136.
44. C.U. Smith, M. Woodside, and P. Clements (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Software and Performance, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, ACM, October 12-16 1998.
45. P. Utton and B. Hill, Performance prediction: an industry perspective, Performance Tools 97 Conference (St Malo), June 1997, pp. 1-5.
46. M. Woodside, H. Gomaa, and D. Menasce (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software and Performance, Ottawa, Canada, ACM, September 17-20 2000.
47. M. Woodside, C. Hrischuck, B. Selic, and S. Bayarov, A wideband approach to integrating performance prediction into a software design environment, in Smith et al. [44], pp. 31-41.
48. _, Automated performance modeling of software generated by a design environment, Performance Evaluation 45 (2001), 107-123.