skip to main content
10.1145/3427921.3450250acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Compositional Evaluation of Stochastic Workflows for Response Time Analysis of Composite Web Services

Published: 09 April 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Workflows are patterns of orchestrated activities designed to deliver some specific output, with application in various relevant contexts including software services, business processes, supply chain management. In most of these scenarios, durational properties of individual activities can be identified from logged data and cast in stochastic models, enabling quantitative evaluation of time behavior for diagnostic and predictive analytics. However, effective fitting of observed durations commonly requires that distributions break the limits of memoryless behavior and unbounded support of Exponential distributions, casting the problem in the class of non-Markovian models. This results in a major hurdle for numerical solution, largely exacerbated by the concurrency structure of workflows, which natively subtend concurrent activities with overlapping execution intervals and a limited number of regeneration points, i.e., time points at which the Markov property is satisfied and analysis can be decomposed according to a renewal argument. We propose a compositional method for quantitative evaluation of end-to-end response time of complex workflows. The workflow is modeled through Stochastic Time Petri Nets (STPNs), associating activity durations with Exponential distributions truncated over bilateral firmly bounded supports that fit mean and coefficient of variation of real logged histograms. Based on the model structure, the workflow is decomposed into a hierarchy of subworkflows, each amenable to efficient numerical solution through Markov regenerative transient analysis. In this step, the grain of decomposition is driven by non-deterministic analysis of the space of feasible behaviors in the underlying Time Petri Net (TPN) model, which permits efficient characterization of the factors that affect behavior complexity between regeneration points. Duration distributions of the subworkflows obtained through separate analyses are then repeatedly recomposed in numerical form to compute the response time distribution of the overall workflow.
Applicability is demonstrated on a case from the literature of composite web services, here extended in complexity to demonstrate scalability of the approach towards finer grain composition schemes, and associated with a variety of durations randomly selected from a data set in the literature of service oriented computing, so as to assess variability of accuracy and complexity of the overall approach with respect to specific timings.

References

[1]
Ruth Sara Aguilar-Saven. 2004. Business process modelling: Review and framework. Int. Journal of production economics, Vol. 90, 2 (2004), 129--149.
[2]
Elvio Gilberto Amparore, Gianfranco Balbo, Marco Beccuti, Susanna Donatelli, and Giuliana Franceschinis. 2016. 30 years of GreatSPN. In Principles of Performance and Reliability Modeling and Evaluation. Springer, 227--254.
[3]
Danilo Ardagna and Barbara Pernici. 2007. Adaptive service composition in flexible processes. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, Vol. 33, 6 (2007), 369--384.
[4]
Florian Arnold, Holger Hermanns, Reza Pulungan, and Mariëlle Stoelinga. 2014. Time-dependent analysis of attacks. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Principles of Security and Trust. Springer, 285--305.
[5]
Gerd Behrmann, Alexandre David, Kim Guldstrand Larsen, Paul Pettersson, and Wang Yi. 2011. Developing textscUppaal over 15 years. Softw. Pract. Exper., Vol. 41, 2 (Feb. 2011), 133--142.
[6]
Bernard Berthomieu, P.-O. Ribet, and François Vernadat. 2004. The tool TINA -- construction of abstract state spaces for Petri Nets and Time Petri Nets. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42, 14 (2004).
[7]
Marco Biagi, Laura Carnevali, Marco Paolieri, Tommaso Papini, and Enrico Vicario. 2017. Exploiting Non-deterministic Analysis in the Integration of Transient Solution Techniques for Markov Regenerative Processes. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. Springer, 20--35.
[8]
Andrea Bobbio, András Horváth, and Miklós Telek. 2005. Matching three moments with minimal acyclic phase type distributions. Stochastic models, Vol. 21, 2--3 (2005), 303--326.
[9]
Andrea Bobbio and Miklos Telek. 1995. Markov regenerative SPN with non-overlapping activity cycles. In Proc. Int. Comput. Perf. and Depend. Symp. 124--133.
[10]
Radu Calinescu, Lars Grunske, Marta Kwiatkowska, Raffaela Mirandola, and Giordano Tamburrelli. 2010. Dynamic QoS management and optimization in service-based systems. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, Vol. 37, 3 (2010), 387--409.
[11]
Gerardo Canfora, Massimiliano Di Penta, Raffaele Esposito, and Maria Luisa Villani. 2005. QoS-aware replanning of composite web services. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Web Services. IEEE, 121--129.
[12]
Laura Carnevali, Leonardo Grassi, and Enrico Vicario. 2009a. State-density functions over DBM domains in the analysis of non-Markovian models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 35, 2 (2009), 178--194.
[13]
Laura Carnevali, Lorenzo Ridi, and Enrico Vicario. 2009b. Stochastic Fault Trees for cross-layer power management of WSN monitoring systems. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation. IEEE, 1--8.
[14]
Hoon Choi, Vidyadhar G Kulkarni, and Kishor S Trivedi. 1994. Markov regenerative stochastic Petri nets. Performance evaluation, Vol. 20, 1--3 (1994), 337--357.
[15]
Francisco Curbera, Yaron Goland, Johannes Klein, Frank Leymann, Dieter Roller, Satish Thatte, and Sanjiva Weerawarana. 2002. Business process execution language for web services.
[16]
Conrado Daws, Alfredo Olivero, Stavros Tripakis, and Sergio Yovine. 1995. The Tool KRONOS. In Hybrid systems III. 1066, Springer.
[17]
Ton G de Kok and Jan C Fransoo. 2003. Planning supply chain operations: definition and comparison of planning concepts. Handbooks in operations research and management science, Vol. 11 (2003), 597--675.
[18]
David L Dill. 1989. Timing assumptions and verification of finite-state concurrent systems. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 197--212.
[19]
Jean-Michel Fourneau and Nihal Pekergin. 2015. A numerical analysis of dynamic fault trees based on stochastic bounds. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. Springer, 176--191.
[20]
G. Gardey, D. Lime, M. Magnin, and O.(H.) Roux. 2005. Roméo: a tool for analyzing Time Petri Nets. CAV'05 (2005).
[21]
Reinhard German and Christoph Lindemann. 1994. Analysis of stochastic Petri nets by the method of supplementary variables. Perf. Eval., Vol. 20, 1--3 (1994), 317--335.
[22]
Robert Heinrich, André van Hoorn, Holger Knoche, Fei Li, Lucy Ellen Lwakatare, Claus Pahl, Stefan Schulte, and Johannes Wettinger. 2017. Performance engineering for microservices: research challenges and directions. In Proc. of the 8th ACM/SPEC on Int. Conf. on Performance Engineering Companion. 223--226.
[23]
András Horváth, Marco Paolieri, Lorenzo Ridi, and Enrico Vicario. 2012. Transient analysis of non-Markovian models using stochastic state classes. Performance Evaluation, Vol. 69, 7--8 (2012), 315--335.
[24]
Andrá s Horvá th and Mikló s Telek. 2002. PhFit: A General Phase-Type Fitting Tool. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Comput. Perf. Eval., Modelling Tech. and Tools. 82--91.
[25]
V. Kulkarni. 1995. Modeling and analysis of stochastic systems .Chapman & Hall. http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439808757
[26]
H Dharma Kwon, Steven A Lippman, and Christopher S Tang. 2010. Optimal time-based and cost-based coordinated project contracts with unobservable work rates. Int. Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 126, 2 (2010), 247--254.
[27]
Jianhua Lin. 1991. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information theory, Vol. 37, 1 (1991), 145--151.
[28]
Christoph Lindemann. 1995. DSPNexpress: a software package for the efficient solution of deterministic and stochastic Petri nets. Perf. Eval., Vol. 22, 1 (1995), 3--21.
[29]
Christoph Lindemann. 1998. Performance modelling with deterministic and stochastic Petri nets. ACM SIGMETRICS Perf. Eval. Review, Vol. 26, 2 (1998), 3.
[30]
Christoph Lindemann and Axel Thümmler. 1999. Transient analysis of deterministic and stochastic Petri nets with concurrent deterministic transitions. Perf. Eval., Vol. 36 (1999), 35--54.
[31]
Yanjie Liu, Zheng Zheng, and Jiantao Zhang. 2019. Markov Model of Web Services for Their Performance Based on Phase-Type Expansion. In Proc. DASC-PICOM-CBDCOM-CYBERSCITECH. IEEE, 699--704.
[32]
Daniel A Menascé. 2004. Response-time analysis of composite Web services. IEEE Internet computing, Vol. 8, 1 (2004), 90--92.
[33]
Frank Nielsen. 2019. On a generalization of the Jensen-Shannon divergence and the JS-symmetrization of distances relying on abstract means. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04017 (2019).
[34]
Marco Paolieri, Marco Biagi, Laura Carnevali, and Enrico Vicario. to appear. The ORIS Tool: Quantitative Evaluation of Non-Markovian Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( to appear).
[35]
Philipp Reinecke, Tilman Krauß, and Katinka Wolter. 2012. Cluster-based fitting of phase-type distributions to empirical data. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 64, 12 (2012), 3840--3851.
[36]
Philipp Reinecke, Tilman Krauß, and Katinka Wolter. 2013. Phase-Type Fitting Using HyperStar. In Proc. Europ. Perf. Eng. Workshop. 164--175.
[37]
Andreas Rogge-Solti, Wil MP van der Aalst, and Mathias Weske. 2013. Discovering stochastic petri nets with arbitrary delay distributions from event logs. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Business Process Management. Springer, 15--27.
[38]
Luigi Sassoli and Enrico Vicario. 2007. Close form derivation of state-density functions over DBM domains in the analysis of non-Markovian models. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. IEEE, 59--68.
[39]
SIRIO Library. 2020. https://github.com/oris-tool/sirio .
[40]
Miklós Telek and András Horváth. 2001. Transient analysis of Age-MRSPNs by the method of supplementary variables. Perf. Eval., Vol. 45, 4 (2001), 205--221.
[41]
Kisho S Trivedi and Robin Sahner. 2009. SHARPE at the age of twenty two. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 36, 4 (2009), 52--57.
[42]
John W Tukey. 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Vol. 2. Reading, MA.
[43]
Wil Van Der Aalst, Kees Max Van Hee, and Kees van Hee. 2004. Workflow management: models, methods, and systems .MIT press.
[44]
Wil MP van Der Aalst, Arthur HM Ter Hofstede, Bartek Kiepuszewski, and Alistair P Barros. 2003. Workflow patterns. Dist.&paral. datab., Vol. 14, 1 (2003), 5--51.
[45]
Enrico Vicario. 2001. Static analysis and dynamic steering of time-dependent systems. IEEE transactions on software engineering, Vol. 27, 8 (2001), 728--748.
[46]
Changzhou Wang, Guijun Wang, Haiqin Wang, Alice Chen, and Rodolfo Santiago. 2006. Quality of service (QoS) contract specification, establishment, and monitoring for service level management. In Proc. IEEE Int. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops. IEEE, 49--49.
[47]
Ward Whitt. 1982. Approximating a point process by a renewal process, I: Two basic methods. Operations Research, Vol. 30, 1 (1982), 125--147.
[48]
Elyas Ben Hadj Yahia, Laurent Réveillere, Yérom-David Bromberg, Raphaël Chevalier, and Alain Cadot. 2016. Medley: An event-driven lightweight platform for service composition. In Int. Conf. on Web Engineering. Springer, 3--20.
[49]
Yilei Zhang, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R Lyu. 2011. WSPred: A time-aware personalized QoS prediction framework for Web services. In IEEE Int. Symp. on Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE, 210--219.
[50]
Zheng Zheng, Kishor S Trivedi, Kun Qiu, and Ruofan Xia. 2015. Semi-markov models of composite web services for their performance, reliability and bottlenecks. IEEE Transactions on services computing, Vol. 10, 3 (2015), 448--460.
[51]
Zibin Zheng and M. R. Lyu. 2008. WS-DREAM: A distributed reliability assessment Mechanism for Web Services. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Dependable Systems and Networks With FTCS and DCC. 392--397.
[52]
Armin Zimmermann. 2017. Modelling and performance evaluation with TimeNET 4.4. In Int. Conf. on Quantitative Eval. of Systems. Springer, 300--303.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)LatenSeerProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing10.1145/3620678.3624787(502-519)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
  • (2023)Compositional Safe Approximation of Response Time Probability Density Function of Complex WorkflowsACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/359120533:4(1-26)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2023
  • (2022)A Markov Regenerative Model of Software Rejuvenation Beyond the Enabling Restriction2022 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)10.1109/ISSREW55968.2022.00060(138-145)Online publication date: Oct-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICPE '21: Proceedings of the ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering
April 2021
301 pages
ISBN:9781450381949
DOI:10.1145/3427921
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 April 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Badges

Author Tags

  1. Markov regenerative processes
  2. composite web services
  3. performance evaluation
  4. regenerative transient analysis
  5. stochastic workflows

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICPE '21

Acceptance Rates

ICPE '21 Paper Acceptance Rate 16 of 61 submissions, 26%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 252 of 851 submissions, 30%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)21
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)LatenSeerProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing10.1145/3620678.3624787(502-519)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
  • (2023)Compositional Safe Approximation of Response Time Probability Density Function of Complex WorkflowsACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/359120533:4(1-26)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2023
  • (2022)A Markov Regenerative Model of Software Rejuvenation Beyond the Enabling Restriction2022 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)10.1109/ISSREW55968.2022.00060(138-145)Online publication date: Oct-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media