Performance Modeling and Benchmarking of Event-Based ... - DVS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100 CHAPTER 5. BENCHMARKING OF EVENT-BASED SYSTEMS it was a challenge to place the focus of the workload on the MOM-related components, without compromising the workload representativeness. As to the first concern, the problem is that without a database it is hard to manage any application state and this makes it difficult to emulate the interdependencies between the interactions. We addressed this by building a detailed model of the business scenario, capturing the relative rates of the different operations and the interdependencies between the interactions. This made it possible to emulate database access operations and configure the interactions in such a way that they behave as if a real database were used. Note that, while we are not using a database for managing application state, it is perfectly legitimate to use a database as part of the MOM infrastructure for persistent messaging. As to the second concern, the major issue was how to minimize the overhead of parsing XML messages on the client. On the one hand, we wanted to use XML for inter-company communication in order to keep things as realistic as possible, on the other hand, using a fullblown XML parser to parse messages would have introduced too much overhead on the client for operations which are not directly related to the MOM services. The solution was to implement an optimized routine that exploits the knowledge of the exact structure of received XML messages and extracts the needed data without having to parse the whole XML documents. Workload Configurability An important goal of SPECjms2007 that we discussed in Section 5.1.1 was to provide a flexible framework for performance analysis of MOM servers that allows users to configure and customize the workload according to their requirements. To achieve this goal, the interactions have been implemented in such a way that one could run them in different combinations depending on the desired transaction mix. SPECjms2007 offers three different ways of structuring the workload: horizontal, vertical and freeform. The latter are referred to as workload topologies and they correspond to three different modes of running the benchmark offering different levels of configurability. The horizontal topology is meant to exercise the ability of the system to handle an increasing number of destinations. To this end, the workload is scaled by increasing the number of physical locations (SMs, DCs, etc.) while keeping the traffic per location constant. The vertical topology, on the other hand, is meant to exercise the ability of the system to handle increasing message traffic through a fixed set of destinations. Therefore, a fixed set of physical locations is used and the workload is scaled by increasing the rate at which interactions are run. Finally, the freeform topology allows the user to use the seven SPECjms2007 interactions as building blocks to design his own workload scenario which can be scaled in an arbitrary manner by increasing the number of physical locations and/or the rates at which interactions are run. In the most general case, the following workload parameters can be configured: • Number of physical locations (HQs, SMs, DCs, SPs) emulated • Rates at which interactions are run • Message size distribution for each message type • Number of agents for each physical location • Distribution of agents across client nodes • Number of JVMs run on each client node • Distribution of agents among JVMs • Number of event handlers for each message type • Number of driver threads for each interaction
5.2. CASE STUDY I: SPECJMS2007 101 • Number of JMS connections shared amongst event handlers • Acknowledgment mode for non-transactional sessions • Optional connection sharing by multiple sessions • Frequency of runtime statistics While in horizontal and vertical topologies restrictions apply to the above parameters, freeform topology leaves all parameter configurations up to the user. Most importantly, the user can selectively turn off interactions or change the rate at which they are run to shape the workload according to his requirements. At the same time, when running the horizontal or vertical topology, the benchmark behaves as if the interactions were interrelated according to their dependencies in the real-life application scenario. For further details on the benchmark implementation, the reader is referred to [214]. 5.2 Case Study I: SPECjms2007 In this section, we present a case study with a deployment of SPECjms2007 using the WebLogic Server 10 JMS platform including a detailed performance analysis considering both the P2P and pub/sub messaging domains. Our evaluation is the first one that uses a standard workload to stress the JMS server. We demonstrate how SPECjms2007 can be exploited for in-depth analysis of selected aspects of the MOM server performance. SPECjms2007 Driver Opteron 1216 2.4 GHz Dual Core CPU 4 GB, Debian Linux 2.6.18 BEA WebLogic Server 10 2 x Intel Xeon 5335 2.33 GHz Quad-Core, 8 MB Cache 4 SAS RAID 0, 16 GB Windows 2003 Server 64bit 1 GBit 1 GBit SPECjms2007 Driver IBM x3850 Server 4 x Intel Dual-Core Xeon 7150N 3.5GHz, 16 GB, 6 SAS RAID 10 Debian Linux 2.6.18 Figure 5.19: Experimental Environment 5.2.1 Experimental Setting The experimental environment in which we conducted our case study is depicted in Figure 5.19. WebLogic Server was deployed on a machine with two quad-core Intel Xeon 2.33 GHz CPUs and
Page 1:
Performance Modeling and Benchmarki
Page 4 and 5:
priorities. Finally, we validated o
Page 6 and 7:
4.3.4 Tool Extension . . . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
5.7 Proportions of the Interactions
Page 11 and 12:
List of Acronyms Acronym λ t,k j A
Page 13 and 14:
Acronym SPEC-OSG SPE SPN SQL ST SUT
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivati
Page 17 and 18:
PC Server 310 PC Server 310 PC Serv
Page 19 and 20:
1.3. APPROACH AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF
Page 21 and 22:
1.4. THESIS ORGANIZATION 7 • Stan
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 2 Background In this chapte
Page 25 and 26:
2.1. EVENT-BASED SYSTEMS 11 is gene
Page 27 and 28:
2.2. TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS OF EVENT-
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
2.3. INTRODUCTION TO QUEUEING PETRI
Page 37 and 38:
2.3. INTRODUCTION TO QUEUEING PETRI
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 3 Related Work In this chap
Page 41 and 42:
3.2. BENCHMARKING OF EVENT-BASED SY
Page 43 and 44:
3.2. BENCHMARKING OF EVENT-BASED SY
Page 45 and 46:
3.4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 31 hierarch
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 4 Performance Engineering o
Page 49 and 50:
4.1. MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR EBS 3
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
4.2. PERFORMANCE MODELING PATTERN 4
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: 4.2. PERFORMANCE MODELING PATTERN 4
Page 87 and 88: 4.3. EXTENSIONS OF QPNS 73 ,-).$%&'
Page 89 and 90: 4.4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 75 Without
Page 91 and 92: Chapter 5 Benchmarking of Event-Bas
Page 93 and 94: 5.1. SPECJMS2007 - A STANDARD BENCH
Page 113: 5.1. SPECJMS2007 - A STANDARD BENCH
Page 117 and 118: 5.2. CASE STUDY I: SPECJMS2007 103
Page 125 and 126: 5.3. JMS2009-PS - A PUBLISH /SUBSCR
Page 127 and 128: 5.3. JMS2009-PS - A PUBLISH /SUBSCR
Page 129 and 130: 5.4. CASE STUDY II: JMS2009-PS 115
Page 131 and 132: 5.4. CASE STUDY II: JMS2009-PS 117
Page 133 and 134: Chapter 6 Performance Modeling of E
Page 135 and 136: 6.2. MODELING SPECJMS2007 121 Scena
Page 137 and 138: 6.2. MODELING SPECJMS2007 123 BASE*
Page 139 and 140: 6.2. MODELING SPECJMS2007 125 1‘O
Page 141 and 142: 6.2. MODELING SPECJMS2007 127 Sc. 1
Page 143 and 144: 6.2. MODELING SPECJMS2007 129 Perce
Page 145 and 146: 6.2. MODELING SPECJMS2007 131 Serve
Page 147 and 148: 6.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 133 the mod
Page 149 and 150: Chapter 7 Conclusions and Outlook W
Page 151 and 152: 7.1. ONGOING AND FUTURE WORK 137 JA
Page 153 and 154: 7.1. ONGOING AND FUTURE WORK 139 th
Page 155 and 156: Bibliography [1] J. Abbott, K. B. M
Page 157 and 158: BIBLIOGRAPHY 143 [29] BiCEP Researc
Page 159 and 160: BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 [61] G. Cugola and
Page 161 and 162: BIBLIOGRAPHY 147 [92] R. Henjes, M.
Page 163 and 164: BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 [128] S. Kounev an
Page 165 and 166:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151 [162] Object Compu
Page 167 and 168:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 153 [197] K. Sachs, S.
Page 169 and 170:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 155 [228] P. Tran, P.
Page 171:
Erklärung Hiermit erkläre ich, di
show all

Performance Modeling and Benchmarking of Event-Based ... - DVS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?