Lloyd G. Williams
ABSTRACT
Architectural decisions are among the earliest made in a software development project. They are also the most costly to fix if, when the software is completed, the architecture is found to be inappropriate for meeting quality objectives. Thus, it is important to be able to assess the impact of architectural decisions on quality objectives such as performance and reliability at the time that they are made.This paper describes PASA, a method for performance assessment of software architectures. It was developed from our experience in conducting performance assessments of software architectures in a variety of application domains including web-based systems, financial applications, and real-time systems. PASA uses the principles and techniques of software performance engineering (SPE) to determine whether an architecture is capable of supporting its performance objectives. The method may be applied to new development to uncover potential problems when they are easier and less expensive to fix. It may also be used when upgrading legacy systems to decide whether to continue to commit resources to the current architecture or migrate to a new one. The method is illustrated with an example drawn from an actual assessment.
- {Balsamo, et al. 1998} 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.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- {Booch, et al. 1999} G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Brown, et al. 1998} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Buschmann, et al. 1996} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Cortellesa and Mirandola 2000} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Clements and Northrup 1996} P. C. Clements and L. M. Northrup, "Software Architecture: An Executive Overview," Technical Report No. CMU/SEI-96-TR-003, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, February, 1996.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- {Dowdy, et al. 1984} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Eager and Sevcik 1983} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Gamma, et al. 1995} E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Grahn and Bosch 1998} H. Grahn and J. Bosch, "Some Initial Performance Characteristics of Three Architectural Styles," Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP98), Santa Fe, NM, October, 1998, pp. 197-198.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Grassi, et al. 2000} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Hsieh and Lam 1987} Ching-Tarng Hsieh and Simon S. Lam, "Two Classes of Performance Bounds for Closed Queueing Networks," Performance Evaluation, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3-30, 1987.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Kazman, et al. 1998} 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.]]Google Scholar
- {Kazman, et al. 1996} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Klein and Kazman 1999} M. Klein and R. Kazman, "Attribute-Based Architectural Styles," Technical Report No. CMU/SEI-99-TR-022, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, October, 1999.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- {Lüthi, et al. 1997} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Majumdar, et al. 1991} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Pooley and King 1999} R. Pooley and P. King, "The Unified Modeling Language and Performance Engineering," IEE Proceedings-Software, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 2-10, 1999.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- {Schmidt, et al. 2000} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Shaw and Garlan 1996} M. Shaw and D. Garlan, Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Smith and Williams in preparation} C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, "New Software Performance Antipatterns," manuscript in preparation.]]Google Scholar
- {Smith and Williams 2002} C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Smith and Williams 2000} C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, "Software Performance Antipatterns," Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2000), Ottawa, Canada, September, 2000, pp. 127-136.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Smith and Williams 1998} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Smith and Williams 1997} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Smith 1990} C. U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1990.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Stephens and Dowdy 1984} Lindsey E. Stephens and Lawrence W. Dowdy, "Convolutional Bound Hierarchies," SIGMETRICS, pp. 120-133, 1984]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Williams and Smith 1998} 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.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Williams and Smith in preparation} L. G. Williams and C. U. Smith, "Performance Characteristics of Common Architectural Styles: Pipe-and-Filter and Client-Server," manuscript in preparation.]]Google Scholar
- PASASM: a method for the performance assessment of software architectures
Recommendations
Reinsurer's optimal reinsurance strategy with upper and lower premium constraints under distortion risk measures
Motivated by Cui etźal. (2013) and Zheng and Cui (2014), we study in this paper the optimal (from the reinsurer's point of view) reinsurance problem where the risk is measured by distortion risk measures, the premiums are calculated under the distortion ...
Principles and procedures of the LRAM approach to information systems risk analysis and management
Risk assessment methods vary in nature and depth. Their application to the evaluation of information security issues should be decided on the basis of their capability to provide answers to the fundamental questions concerning the design and ...
Comments