Pinpointing the Subsystems Responsible for the Performance Deviations in a Load Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large scale systems (LSS) contain multiple subsystems that interact across multiple nodes in sometimes unforeseen and complicated ways. As a result, pinpointing the subsystems that are the source of performance degradation for a load test in LSS can be frustrating, and might take several hours or even days. This is due to the large volume of performance counter data collected such as CPU utilization, Disk I/O, memory consumption and network traffic, the limited operational knowledge of analysts about all subsystems of an LSS and the unavailability of up-to-date documentation in a LSS. We have developed a methodology that automatically ranks the subsystems according to the deviation of their performance in a load test. Our methodology uses performance counter data of a load test to craft performance signatures for the LSS subsystems. Pair-wise correlations among the performance signatures of subsystems within a load test are compared with the corresponding correlations in a baseline test to pinpoint the subsystems responsible for the performance violations. Case studies on load test data obtained from a large telecom system and that of an open source benchmark application show that our approach provides an accuracy of 79% and do not require any instrumentation or domain knowledge to operate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".