Performance by unified model analysis (PUMA)

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of non-functional properties of a design (such as performance, dependability, security, etc.) can be enabled by design annotations specific to the property to be evaluated. Performance properties, for instance, can be annotated on UML designs by using the "UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (SPT)". However the communication between the design description in UML and the tools used for non-functional properties evaluation requires support, particularly for performance where there are many alternative performance analysis tools that might be applied. This paper describes a tool architecture called PUMA, which provides a unified interface between different kinds of design information and different kinds of performance models, for example Markov models, stochastic Petri nets and process algebras, queues and layered queues.The paper concentrates on the creation of performance models. The unified interface of PUMA is centered on an intermediate model called Core Scenario Model (CSM), which is extracted from the annotated design model. Experience shows that CSM is also necessary for cleaning and auditing the design information, and providing default interpretations in case it is incomplete, before creating a performance model.

REFERENCES

• 1: M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Balbo, G. Conte, S. Donatelli. and G. Franceschinis, Modelling with generalized stochastic Petri nets, John Wiley, 1995.
• 2: S. Balsamo and M. Marzolla. "Simulation Modeling of UML Software Architectures", Proc. ESM'03. Nottingham (UK), June 2003
• 3: Simona Bernardi , Susanna Donatelli , José Merseguer, From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable petri net models, Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance, July 24-26, 2002, Rome, Italy [doi>10.1145/584369.584376]
• 4: C. Canevet , S. Gilmore , J. Hillston , L. Kloul , P. Stevens, Analysing UML 2.0 activity diagrams in the software performance engineering process, Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Software and performance, January 14-16, 2004, Redwood Shores, California
• 5: Vittorio Cortellessa , Raffaela Mirandola, Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams, Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, p.58-70, September 2000, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/350391.350406]
• 6: Susanna Donatelli , Giuliana Franceschinis, The PSR Methodology: Integrating Hardware and Software Models, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, p.133-152, June 24-28, 1996
• 7: G. Franks, S. Majumdar, J. Neilson, D. Petriu, J. Rolia, and M. Woodside, Performance Analysis of Distributed Server Systems, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Software Quality (61CSQ), Ottawa, Canada, 1996, pp. 15--26.
• 8: ISO/IEC 15909-1:2004 Software and system engineering -- High-level Petri nets -- Part 1: Concepts, definitions and graphical notation, 2004.
• 9: R. Jain, The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1991
• 10: Ekkart Kindler High-level Petri Nets, Transfer Syntax, Proposal for the International Standard ISO/IEC 15909-2, Draft Version 0.3.0, April 21, 2004, at <u>www.upb.de/cs/</u> kindler/publications/copies/ISO-IEC-15909-2-Draft.0.3.0.pdf
• 11: Juan Pablo López-Grao , José Merseguer , Javier Campos, From UML activity diagrams to Stochastic Petri nets: application to software performance engineering, Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Software and performance, January 14-16, 2004, Redwood Shores, California
• 12: J. Merseguer, Software performance engineering based on UML and Peiri nets, Ph.D. thesis, University of Zaragoza, Spain, March 2003.
• 13: Object Management Group. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/02-03-02, July 1, 2002.
• 14: Dorin C. Petriu , C. Murray Woodside, Software Performance Models from System Scenarios in Use Case Maps, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools, p.141-158, April 14-17, 2002
• 15: D. B. Petriu and M. Woodside, "A Metamodel for Generating Performance Models from UML Designs", in Proc UML 2004, v. 3273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS 3273), Lisbon, Oct 2004, pp. 41--53. An extended version is to appear in the Journal of Software and Systems in 2005.
• 16: Dorina C. Petriu , Hui Shen, Applying the UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar-Based Derivation of LQN Models from UML Specifications, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools, p.159-177, April 14-17, 2002
• 17: D. C. Petriu , C. M. Woodside, Performance analysis with UML: layered queueing models from the performance profile, UML for real: design of embedded real-time systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 2003
• 18: Connie U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1990
• 19: C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams, Performance Solutions. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
• 20: Connie U. Smith , Catalina M. Llado, Performance Model Interchange Format (PMIF 2.0): XML Definition and Implementation, Proceedings of the The Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference on (QEST'04), p.38-47, September 27-30, 2004 [doi>10.1109/QEST.2004.34]
• 21: J. Xu, M. Woodside, and D. C. Petriu, "Performance Analysis of a Software Design using the UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time," in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation (TOOLS 03), Urbana, USA, Sept. 2003.
• 22: The GreatSPN tool, http://www.di.unito.it/~greatspn

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
UML, model building, performance models, scenarios, software performance engineering