Software Performance Modeling Using UML and Petri Nets

Software systems are today one of the most complex artifacts, they are simultaneously used by hundred-thousand of people sometimes in risk real time operations, such as auctions or electronic commerce. Nevertheless, it is a common practice to deploy them without the expected performance. Software Performance Engineering has emerged as a discipline to complement Software Engineering research in order to address this kind of problems. In this work, we survey some recent contributions in the field of Software Performance Engineering. The approach surveyed has as main features that it uses the UML diagrams to specify the functional and performance requeriments of the system and the stochastic Petri nets formalism to analyse it.

[1]  Manuel Silva Suárez,et al.  Structured Solution of Asynchronously Communicating Stochastic Modules , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[2]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design , 1991, TOOLS.

[3]  Gérard Berthelot.  Transformations and Decompositions of Nets , 1986 .

[4]  Andreas Schmietendorf,et al.  Aspects of Performance Engineering – An Overview , 2001 .

[5]  José Merseguer,et al.  Exploring Roles for the UML Diagrams in Software Performance Engineering , 2003, Software Engineering Research and Practice.

[6]  Marco Ajmone Marsan,et al.  Modelling with Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets , 1995, PERV.

[7]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Origins of Software Performance Engineering: Highlights and Outstanding Problems , 2001, Performance Engineering.

[8]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-oriented software engineering - a use case driven approach , 1993, TOOLS.

[9]  Michael K. Molloy.  Performance Analysis Using Stochastic Petri Nets , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[10]  J Bradley,et al.  Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual UK Performance Engineering Workshop , 1999 .

[11]  Dorina C. Petriu,et al.  Applying the UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar-Based Derivation of LQN Models from UML Specifications , 2002, Computer Performance Evaluation / TOOLS.

[12]  Manuel Silva,et al.  Properties and performance bounds for closed free choice synchronized monoclass queueing networks , 1991 .

[13]  Eduardo Mena,et al.  A pattern-based approach to model software performance , 2000, WOSP '00.

[14]  Paola Inverardi,et al.  Performance analysis at the software architectural design level , 2001, Perform. Evaluation.

[15]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Software performance antipatterns , 2000, WOSP '00.

[16]  Eduardo Mena,et al.  Analysing Internet Software Retrieval Systems: Modeling and Performance Comparison , 2003, Wirel. Networks.

[17]  Bran Selic,et al.  Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance , 2002 .

[18]  Brian Hill,et al.  Performance Prediction: An Industry Perspective , 1997, Computer Performance Evaluation.

[19]  Claus Rautenstrauch,et al.  Performance Engineering: State of the Art and Current Trends , 2001 .

[20]  Thomas Lambolais,et al.  UML extensions for the specification and evaluation of latency constraints in architectural models , 2000, WOSP '00.

[21]  Susanna Donatelli,et al.  From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable petri net models , 2002, WOSP '02.

[22]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Performance Engineering of Software Systems , 1990, SIGMETRICS Perform. Evaluation Rev..

[23]  Daniel A. Menascé,et al.  Design and performance modeling of component interconnection patterns for distributed software architectures , 2000, WOSP '00.

[24]  Rob Pooley,et al.  The unified modelling language , 1999, IEE Proc. Softw..

[25]  Manuel Silva.  Las Redes de Petri : en la Automática y la Informática , 2002 .

[26]  Javier Campos,et al.  On state space decomposition for the numerical analysis of stochastic Petri nets , 1999, Proceedings 8th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models (Cat. No.PR00331).

[27]  Joost-Pieter Katoen,et al.  Process algebra for performance evaluation , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[28]  Manuel Silva Suárez,et al.  Improving the linearly based characterization of P/T nets , 1991, Applications and Theory of Petri Nets.

[29]  Mandyam M. Srinivasan,et al.  Introduction To Computer System Performance Evaluation , 1992 .

[30]  Eladio Domínguez,et al.  Dynamic Semantics of UML State Machines: A Metamodeling Perspective , 2002, J. Database Manag..

[31]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering , 1987 .

[32]  Raffaela Mirandola,et al.  Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams , 2000, WOSP '00.

[33]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Increasing Information Systems Productivity by Software Performance Engineering , 1981, Int. CMG Conference.

[34]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Software and performance , 1998, WOSP 2008.

[35]  Susanna Donatelli,et al.  A compositional semantics for UML state machines aimed at performance evaluation , 2002, Sixth International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, 2002. Proceedings..

[36]  Javier Campos,et al.  From UML activity diagrams to Stochastic Petri nets: application to software performance engineering , 2004, WOSP '04.

[37]  Bran Selic,et al.  A wideband approach to integrating performance prediction into a software design environment , 1998, WOSP '98.

[38]  Eduardo Mena,et al.  A Performance Engineering Case Study: Software Retrieval System , 2001, Performance Engineering.

[39]  Giovanni Chiola,et al.  Operational analysis of timed Petri nets and application to the computation of performance bounds , 1993, Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models.

[40]  Bran Selic,et al.  Automated performance modeling of software generated by a design environment , 2001, Perform. Evaluation.