Design vs Runtime Models Palladio Days 2013, New York André, Catia, Simon, Robert, Eric, Reiner, Qais, Nikolaus, Teerat, Fabian, Ralf BO Group Design vs Runtime1

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 Runtime2

Capabilities of Kieker Application Level – Tracing Resources – OS monitors, Utilization Monitoring virtual resources? – What is the utilization of virtual resources? BO Group Design vs Runtime3

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 Runtime4

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 Runtime5

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 BO Group Design vs Runtime6