PASASM: An Architectural Approach to Fixing Software Performance Problems

28th International Computer Measurement Group Conference, CMG 2002

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages

  Williams, Lloyd G ^a   Smith, Connie U ^b  

^a Software Engineering Research   (United States)

^b Performance Engineering Services   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

'CURRENT; ARCHITECTURAL APPROACH; LOW-COSTS; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS; PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE; PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS; POTENTIAL PROBLEMS; SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE; SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE ENGINEERINGS;

LEGACY SYSTEMS;

EID: 79957636524     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. S. Balsamo, P. Inverardi, and C. Mangano, “An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP98), Santa Fe, NM, October, 1998, pp. 178-190.
2. G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
3. W. J. Brown, R. C. Malveau, H. W. McCormick III, and T. J. Mowbray, AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1998.
4. F. Buschmann, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P. Sommerlad, and M. Stal, Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns, Chichester, England, John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
5. V. Cortellesa and R. Mirandola, “Deriving A Queueing Network-based Performance Model from UML Diagrams,” Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2000), Ottawa, Canada, September, 2000, pp. 58-70.
6. P. C. Clements, “Coming Attractions in Software Architecture,” Technical Report No. CMU/SEI-96TR-008, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996.
7. Lawrence W. Dowdy, Derek L. Eager, Karen D. Gordon and Lawrence V. Saxton, “Throughput Concavity and Response Time Convexity,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 209-212, 1984.
8. Derek L. Eager and Kenneth C. Sevcik, “Performance Bound Hierarchies for Queueing Networks,” Transactions On Computer Systems vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 99-115, 1983.
9. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1995.
10. V. Grassi, T. Vergate, and V. Cortellesa, “Performance Evaluation of Mobility Based Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2000), Ottawa, Canada, September, 2000, pp. 44-46.
11. R. Kazman, M. Klein, M. Barbacci, T. Longstaff, H. Lipson, and J. Carriere, “The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS98), August, 1998.
12. R. Kazman, G. Abowd, L. Bass, and P. Clements, “Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 47-55, 1996.
13. P. B. Kruchten, “The 4+1 View Model of Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 42-50, 1995.
14. Johannes Lüthi, Shikharesh Majumdar, Gabriele Kotsis, and Günter Haring, “Performance Bounds for Distributed Systems with Workload Variabilities and Uncertainties,” Parallel Computing, vol. 22, no. 13, pp. 1789-1806, 1997.
15. Shikharesh Majumdar, C. Murray Woodside, J. E. Neilson and Dorina C. Petriu, “Performance Bounds for Concurrent Software with Rendezvous, Performance Evaluation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 207-236, 1991.
16. R. Pooley and P. King, “The Unified Modeling Language and Performance Engineering,” IEE Proceedings-Software, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 2-10, 1999.
17. D. Schmidt, M. Stal, H. Ronert, and F. Buschmann, Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 2: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects, Chichester, England, John Wiley and Sons, 2000.
18. M. Shaw and D. Garlan, Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1996.
19. C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, “New Software Performance Antipatterns: More Ways to Shoot Yourself in the Foot,” Proc. CMG, Reno, 2002.
20. C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
21. C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, “Software Performance AntiPatterns: Common Performance Problems and Their Solutions”, Proc. CMG, Anaheim, December 2001
22. C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, “Performance Engineering Evaluation of CORBA-based Distributed Systems with SPEED,” in Computer Performance Evaluation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1469, R. Puigjaner, N. N. Savino and B. Serra, ed., Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 321-335.
23. C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, “Performance Engineering Evaluation of Object-Oriented Systems with SPEED,” in Computer Performance Evaluation: Modelling Techniques and Tools, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1245, R. Marie, B. Plateau, M. Calzarossa and G. Rubino, ed., Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 135-154.
24. C. U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1990.
25. Lindsey E. Stephens and LawrenceW. Dowdy, “Convolutional Bound Hierarchies,” SIGMETRICS, pp. 120-133, 1984
26. L. G. Williams and C. U. Smith, “Performance Evaluation of Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP98), Santa Fe, NM, October, 1998.
27. SM: A Method for the Performance Assessment of Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2002), Rome, Italy, July, 2002.
28. L. G. Williams and C. U. Smith, “Performance Characteristics of Common Architectural Styles: Pipe-and-Filter and Client-Server,” manuscript in preparation.