skip to main content
research-article

Modeling and Extracting Load Intensity Profiles

Published:10 January 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Today’s system developers and operators face the challenge of creating software systems that make efficient use of dynamically allocated resources under highly variable and dynamic load profiles, while at the same time delivering reliable performance. Autonomic controllers, for example, an advanced autoscaling mechanism in a cloud computing context, can benefit from an abstracted load model as knowledge to reconfigure on time and precisely. Existing workload characterization approaches have limited support to capture variations in the interarrival times of incoming work units over time (i.e., a variable load profile). For example, industrial and scientific benchmarks support constant or stepwise increasing load, or interarrival times defined by statistical distributions or recorded traces. These options show shortcomings either in representative character of load variation patterns or in abstraction and flexibility of their format.

In this article, we present the Descartes Load Intensity Model (DLIM) approach addressing these issues. DLIM provides a modeling formalism for describing load intensity variations over time. A DLIM instance is a compact formal description of a load intensity trace. DLIM-based tools provide features for benchmarking, performance, and recorded load intensity trace analysis. As manually obtaining and maintaining DLIM instances becomes time consuming, we contribute three automated extraction methods and devised metrics for comparison and method selection. We discuss how these features are used to enhance system management approaches for adaptations during runtime, and how they are integrated into simulation contexts and enable benchmarking of elastic or adaptive behavior.

We show that automatically extracted DLIM instances exhibit an average modeling error of 15.2% over 10 different real-world traces that cover between 2 weeks and 7 months. These results underline DLIM model expressiveness. In terms of accuracy and processing speed, our proposed extraction methods for the descriptive models are comparable to existing time series decomposition methods. Additionally, we illustrate DLIM applicability by outlining approaches of workload modeling in systems engineering that employ or rely on our proposed load intensity modeling formalism.

References

  1. Paul Barford and Mark Crovella. 1998. Generating representative web workloads for network and server performance evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGMETRICS Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS’98/PERFORMANCE’98). ACM, New York, NY, 151--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Matthias Becker, Sebastian Lehrig, and Steffen Becker. 2015. Systematically deriving quality metrics for cloud computing systems. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 169--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Steffen Becker, Heiko Koziolek, and Ralf Reussner. 2009. The Palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. Journal of Systems and Software 82, 1 (2009), 3--22. Special Issue: Software Performance - Modeling and Analysis Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aaron Beitch, Brandon Liu, Timothy Yung, Rean Griffith, Armando Fox, and David A. Patterson. 2010. Rain: A Workload Generation Toolkit for Cloud Computing Applications. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2010-14. EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2010/EECS-2010-14.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Anton Beloglazov, Jemal Abawajy, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2012. Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for cloud computing. Future Generation Computer Systems 28, 5 (May 2012), 755--768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dominik Benz, Andreas Hotho, Robert Jäschke, Beate Krause, Folke Mitzlaff, Christoph Schmitz, and Gerd Stumme. 2010. The social bookmark and publication management system BibSonomy. The VLDB Journal 19, 6 (Dec. 2010), 849--875. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gordon Blair, Robert B. France, and Nelly Bencomo. 2009. Models@ run.time. Computer 42 (2009), 22--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Herman J. Blinchikoff and Anatol I. Zverev. 1986. Filtering in the Time and Frequency Domains. Krieger Publishing Co., Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. George E. P. Box, Gwilym M. Jenkins, Gregory C. Reinsel, and Greta M. Ljung. 2015. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gunnar Brataas, Erlend Stav, Sebastian Lehrig, Steffen Becker, Goran Kopčak, and Darko Huljenic. 2013. CloudScale: Scalability management for cloud systems. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 335--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rodrigo N. Calheiros and more. 2011. CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Software: Practice and Experience 41, 1 (Jan. 2011), 23--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Giuliano Casale, Amir Kalbasi, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, and Jerry Rolia. 2012. BURN: Enabling workload burstiness in customized service benchmarks. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 4 (2012), 778--793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Robert B. Cleveland, William S. Cleveland, Jean E. McRae, and Irma Terpenning. 1990. STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on loess. Journal of Official Statistics 6, 1 (1990), 3--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Transaction Processing Council. 2002. TPC-W Benchmark (Web Commerce) Specification Version 1.8. Original link http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/spec/tpcw_V1.8.pdf now at http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/05/20/tpcw-v1-8/. (Feb. 2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Faban. 2006. Homepage. Retrieved from http://faban.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dror G. Feitelson. 2002. Workload modeling for performance evaluation. In Performance Evaluation of Complex Systems: Techniques and Tools, MariaCarla Calzarossa and Salvatore Tucci (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2459. Springer, Berlin, 114--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jerome H. Friedman. 1991. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. The Annals of Statistics (1991), 1--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Henning Groenda and Christian Stier. 2015. Improving IaaS cloud analyses by black-box resource demand modeling. Softwaretechnik-Trends 35, 3 (2015). in print.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Emily H. Halili. 2008. Apache JMeter: A Practical Beginner’s Guide to Automated Testing and Performance Measurement for Your Websites. Packt Publishing Ltd. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Nikolas Roman Herbst, Samuel Kounev, Andreas Weber, and Henning Groenda. 2015. BUNGEE: An elasticity benchmark for self-adaptive IaaS cloud environments. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’15). IEEE Press, 46--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rob J. Hyndman and Anne B. Koehler. 2006. Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting (2006), 679--688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeffrey O. Kephart and David M. Chess. 2003. The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36, 1 (Jan. 2003), 41--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Max Kuhn, Steve Weston, Chris Keefer, and Nathan Coulter. 2012. Cubist Models For Regression. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Cubist/vignettes/cubist.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sebastian Lehrig. 2014. Applying architectural templates for design-time scalability and elasticity analyses of SaaS applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Service Scalability (HotTopiCS’14). ACM, New York, NY, Article 2, 8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Sebastian Lehrig, Hendrik Eikerling, and Steffen Becker. 2015. Scalability, elasticity, and efficiency in cloud computing: A systematic literature review of definitions and metrics. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures (QoSA’15). ACM, New York, NY, 83--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Hui Li. 2010. Realistic workload modeling and its performance impacts in large-scale eScience grids. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 21, 4 (2010), 480--493. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Daniel A. Menascé, Virgílio A. F. Almeida, Rudolf Riedi, Flávia Ribeiro, Rodrigo Fonseca, and Wagner Meira, Jr. 2003. A hierarchical and multiscale approach to analyze e-business workloads. Performance Evaluation 54, 1 (Sept. 2003), 33--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. P.-O. Östberg and more. 2014. The CACTOS vision of context-aware cloud topology optimization and simulation. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom). IEEE Computer Society, 26--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. John R. Quinlan and others. 1992. Learning with continuous classes. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 92. 343--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Arcadio Reyes-Lecuona, E. González-Parada, E. Casilari, J. C. Casasola, and A. Diaz-Estrella. 1999. A page-oriented WWW traffic model for wireless system simulations. In Proceedings ITC, Vol. 16. 1271--1280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Roy, T. Begin, and P. Goncalves. 2013. A complete framework for modelling and generating workload volatility of a VoD system. In 2013 9th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC). 1168--1174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bianca Schroeder, Adam Wierman, and Mor Harchol-Balter. 2006. Open versus closed: A cautionary tale. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Networked Systems Design 8 Implementation - Volume 3 (NSDI’06). USENIX Association, 18--18. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1267680.1267698 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Simon Spinner, Giuliano Casale, Xiaoyun Zhu, and Samuel Kounev. 2014. LibReDE: A library for resource demand estimation. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE’14). ACM, New York, NY, 227--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. André van Hoorn, Matthias Rohr, and Wilhelm Hasselbring. 2008. Generating probabilistic and intensity-varying workload for web-based software systems. In Proceedings of the SPEC International Workshop on Performance Evaluation: Metrics, Models and Benchmarks (SIPEW’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 124--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jan Verbesselt, Rob Hyndman, Glenn Newnham, and Darius Culvenor. 2010. Detecting trend and seasonal changes in satellite image time series. Remote Sensing of Environment 114, 1 (2010), 106--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Joakim Gunnarson von Kistowski, Nikolas Roman Herbst, and Samuel Kounev. 2014. Modeling variations in load intensity over time. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Large-Scale Testing (LT 2014), Co-located with the 5th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE 2014). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Xiaozhe Wang, Kate Smith-Miles, and Rob Hyndman. 2009. Rule induction for forecasting method selection: Meta-learning the characteristics of univariate time series. Neurocomputing 72, 10--12 (June 2009), 2581--2594. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Netanel Zakay and Dror G. Feitelson. 2013. Workload resampling for performance evaluation of parallel job schedulers. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 149--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Modeling and Extracting Load Intensity Profiles

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!