Performance analysis of real-time component architectures: A model interchange approach

WOSP'08: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Software and Performance 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 115-126

  Moreno, Gabriel A ^a   Smith, Connie U ^b   Williams, Lloyd G ^c  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Performance Engineering Services   (United States)

^c PerfX   (United States)

Author keywords

Architecture analysis; Component based systems; Model interchange; Performance; Performance analysis; Performance model; Real time systems; Software performance engineering

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURE ANALYSIS; COMPONENT-BASED SYSTEMS; PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS; PERFORMANCE MODEL; SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING;

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; INTERCHANGES; INTERSECTIONS; MODAL ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

REAL TIME SYSTEMS;

EID: 57349120018     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1383559.1383574     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Woodside, CM., G. Franks, and D.C. Petriu. The Future of Software Performance Engineering, in International Conference on Software Engineering, (ICSE). 2007. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
2. Hissam, S.A., et al, Enabling Predictable Assembly. Journal of Systems and Software: Special Issue on Component-Based Software Engineering, 2003. 65(3): p. 185-198.
3. Larsson, M., Predicting quality attributes in component-based software systems. 2004, Malardalen University.
4. Liu, V., I. Gorton, and A. Fekete, Design-level performance prediction of component-based applications. IEEE Trans, on Software Engineering, 2005. 31(11): p. 928-941.
5. Merson, P. and S.A. Hissam. Predictability by construction, in SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA05). 2005. San Diego, CA: ACM.
6. Hissam, S.A., G.A. Moreno, and K.C. Wallnau, Using containers to enforce smart constraints for performance in industrial systems. 2005, Software Engineering Institute -Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
7. Moreno, G.A. Creating custom containers with generative techniques, in Proc. 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE06). 2006. Portland, OR.
8. Bass, L., et al., Reasoning Frameworks. 2005, Software Engineering Institute - Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
9. Ivers, J. and G.A. Moreno. Model-driven development with predictable quality, in SIGPLAN Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems and Applications (OOPSLA07). 2007. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: ACM.
10. Wallnau, K.C. and J. Ivers, Snapshot of CCL: A language for predictable assembly. 2003, Software Engineering Institute -Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
11. Hissam, S.A., et al., Pin component technology (VI.0) and its C interface. 2005, Software Engineering Institute - Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
12. Gonzalez Harbour, M., et al. MAST: Modeling and Analysis Suite for Real-Time Applications, in Proceedings 13th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS). 2001. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
13. Smith, C.U. and CM. Llado. Performance Model Interchange Format (PMIF 2.0): XML Definition and Implementation in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST). 2004. Enschede, NL: IEEE Computer Society.
14. Smith, C.U., et al. From UML Models to Software Performance Results: An SPE Process Based on XML Interchange Formats, in Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP05). 2005. Palma de Mallorca: ACM.
15. Williams, L.G. and C.U. Smith. Information Requirements for Software Performance Engineering, in Proceedings 1995 International Conference on Modeling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation. 1995. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
16. Smith, C.U. and L.G. Williams, Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software. 2002, Boston: Addison-Wesley.
17. L&S, Computer Technology, Inc., Performance Engineering Services Division, in # 110, PO Box 9802, (505) 988-3811, www.spe-ed.com: Austin, TX 78766.
18. Smith, C.U., et al. Interchange formats for performance models: Experimentation and output, in Proc. Quantative Evaluation of Systems (QEST). 2007. Edinburgh, Scotland: IEEE.
19. W3C, World Wide Web Consortium. 2001, www.w3c.org.
20. Kazman, R, et al., Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture. IEEE Software, 1996. 13(6): p. 47-55.
21. Kazman, R., et al. The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method. in International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS98). 1998.
22. Williams, L.G. and C.U. Smith. PASASM: A Method for the Performance Assessment of Software Architectures, in Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Software and Performance. 2002. Rome, IT: ACM Press.
23. Balsamo, S., P. Inverardi, and C. Mangano. An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Software Architectures, in Workshop on Software and Performance. 1998. Santa Fe, NM: ACM.
24. Balsamo, S. and M. Marzolla. Performance Evaluation of UML Software Architectures with Multiclass Queueing Network Models, in WOSP 2005. 2005. Palma de Mallorca: ACM.
25. Gu, G. and D. Petriu. From UML to LQN by XML Algebra-based Model Transformations, in WOSP 2005.2005. Palma de Mallorca: ACM.
26. López-Grao, J.P., J. Merseguer, and J. Campos. From UML Activity Diagrams to Stochastic Petri Nets: Application to Software Performance Engineering, in Proc. Workshop on Software and Performance. 2004. Redwood Shores, CA: ACM.
27. Petriu, D. and CM. Woodside. Analyzing Software Performance Requirements Specification for Performance, in Proc. Workshop on Software and Performance 2002. 2002. Rome: ACM.
28. Savino, N., et al. Extending UML to Manage Performance Models for Software Architectures: A Queuing Network Approach, in Proc. 9th Int. Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, SPECTS. 2002. San Diego, CA.
29. Smith, C.U. and CM. Lladó, Performance Model Interchange Format (PMIF 2.0): XML Definition and Implementation Update Technical Report., 2007, L&S Computer Technology, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM.
30. Smith, C.U., et al. From UML models to software performance results: An SPE process based on XML interchange formats, in Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Software and Performance. 2005. Palma, Illes Balears, Spain: ACM Press.
31. Woodside, CM., et al. Performance by Unified Model Analysis (PUMA), in WOSP 2005.2005. Palma de Mallorca: ACM.
32. D'Ambrogio, A. A Model Transformation Framework for the Automated Building of Performance Models from UML Models, in Proc. 2005 Workshop on Software and Performance. 2005. Palma de Mallorca: ACM Press.
33. Bertolino, A., et al., From UML to Execution Graphs and Queueing Networks: Design and Implementation of the XML- based tool XPRIMAT. 2004, Universita del L'Aquila: L'Aquila, Italy.
34. Cortellessa, V., M. Gentile, and M. Pizzuti. XPRIT: An XML-based Tool to Translate UML Diagrams into Execution Graphs and Queueing Networks (Tool Paper), in Proc. of 1st Int. Conf. on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. 2004. Enschede, NL: IEEE Computer Society.
35. Gomaa, H. and D.A. Menasce, Performance Engineering of Component-Based Distributed Software Systems, in LNCS 2047: Performance Engineering State of the Art and Current Trends, Dumke, etal., Editors. 2001, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, p. 40-55.
36. Gu, G. and D. Petriu. XSLT Transformation from UML Models to LQN Performance Models, in Proc. Workshop on Software and Performance. 2002. Rome: ACM.
37. Wu, X. and CM. Woodside. Performance Modeling from Software Components, in Proc. Workshop on Software and Performance. 2004. Redwood Shores, CA: ACM.
38. Becker, S., H. Koziolek, and R. Reussner. Model-based performance prediction with the Palladia component model, in Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP07). 2007. Buenos Aires, Argentina: ACM.
39. Grassi, V., R. Mirandola, and A. Sabetta. A model-driven approach to performability analysis of dynamically reconfigurable component-based systems, in Woskshop on Software and Performance (WOSP07). 2007. Buenos Aires, Argentina: ACM.
40. Cortellessa, V. How Far Are We From the Definition of a Common Software Performance Ontology? in WOSP 2005.2005. Palma de Mallorca: ACM.
41. Budinsky, F., E. Merks, and D. Steinberg, Eclipse Modeling Framework 2.0 (2ndEdition). 2006: Addison-Wesley Professional.
42. Smith, C.U. and L.G. Williams, Performance Engineering Evaluation of CORBA-based Distributed Systems with SPEED, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, R. Puigjaner, Editor. 1998, Springer: Berlin, Germany.
43. Smith, C.U. and L.G. Williams, Performance Engineering of Object-Oriented Systems with SPEED, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1245: Computer Performance Evaluation, M. R., et al., Editors. 1997, Springer: Berlin, Germany, p. 135-154.
44. Hughes, P., SP Principles. 1988, STC Technology.
45. Beilner, H., J. Mater, and N. Weissenburg. Towards a Performance Modeling Environment: News on HIT. in Proceedings 4th International Conference on Modeling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation. 1988: Plenum Publishing.
46. Gonzalez Harbour, M., M. Klein, and J. Lehoczky, Timing analysis for fixed-priority scheduling of hard real-time systems. IEEE Trans, on Software Engineering, 1994. 20(1): p. 13-28.