BO Group Design vs Runtime 1

Design vs Runtime ModelsPalladio Days 2013, New York

2013-11-29

André, Catia, Simon, Robert, Eric, Reiner, Qais, Nikolaus, Teerat, Fabian,

Ralf

BO Group Design vs Runtime 2

Motivation

• Calibration/Extraction of architectural models– How to use monitoring data (from Kieker) to

parameterize PCM models– Use monitoring data to characterize parameter

distributions in a representative way– Use monitoring data to keep performance model

up-to-date– Other QoS properties than performance?

• Share existing information in the group

BO Group Design vs Runtime 3

Capabilities of Kieker

• Application Level– Tracing

• Resources– OS monitors, Utilization

• Monitoring virtual resources?– What is the utilization of virtual resources?

BO Group Design vs Runtime 4

Model Extraction

• Extract perf model using monitoring data• Extract usage profile• How to know if the extracted model is „good enough“?

• Mapping Components to SW artefacts?• Mapping of model entities to monitoring probes?• Ongoing: Instrumentation Language

• References: – Extraction:

• AndrevH PDays2011, FabianB ASE2011

– Tailored Model Extraction:• AndrevH Diss

BO Group Design vs Runtime 5

Models at Runtime

• Using models for runtime analysis (performance, reliability)

• Capture dynamic runtime behavior (cloud domain)

• Be aware of the reconfiguration options, build the model accordingly

• Same abstraction level for design and runtime models?

BO Group Design vs Runtime 6

Design-time vs Runtime abstractions

• Differences– Type and amount of data available for model parameterization– Degrees of Freedom– ...

• Notion of component instance in PCM?– AssemblyContext not sufficient to identify a component instance

• Descartes– Use path of assembly contexts to identify component instances– Flexible service behavior abstractions– Degrees-of-Freedom Model

• References:– FabianB SciCo2013, NikoH SoCa 2013