Towards the identification of "Guilty" performance antipatterns

Authors:
Vittorio Cortellessa;Anne Martens;Ralf Reussner;Catia Trubiani
Affiliations:
Università degli Studi dell'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy;Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany;Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany;Università degli Studi dell'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
Venue:
Proceedings of the first joint WOSP/SIPEW international conference on Performance engineering
Year:
2010

Citing 6
Cited 2

Software performance antipatterns

Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance
Model-Based Performance Prediction in Software Development: A Survey

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Rule-based automatic software performance diagnosis and improvement

WOSP '08 Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on Software and performance
Approaching the Model-Driven Generation of Feedback to Remove Software Performance Flaws

SEAA '09 Proceedings of the 2009 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications
Automatically improve software architecture models for performance, reliability, and cost using evolutionary algorithms

Proceedings of the first joint WOSP/SIPEW international conference on Performance engineering
A framework for automated generation of architectural feedback from software performance analysis

EPEW'07 Proceedings of the 4th European performance engineering conference on Formal methods and stochastic models for performance evaluation

Determining suitable execution environment based on dynamic workload during early stages of software development life cycle: a simulation approach

International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering
Software performance antipatterns: modeling and analysis

SFM'12 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication, and Software Systems: formal methods for model-driven engineering

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The problem of interpreting the results of software performance analysis is very critical. Software developers expect feedback in terms of architectural design alternatives (e.g., re-deploy a component), whereas the results of performance analysis are pure numbers. Support to the interpretation of such results that helps to fill the gap between numbers and software alternatives is still lacking. Performance antipatterns can play a key role in the search of performance problems and in the formulation of their solutions. In this poster, we introduce a process to elaborate the analysis results and to score performance requirements, model entities and "guilty" performance antipatterns.