MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154941531 · doi:10.1109/icsm.2009.5306331

Automated performance analysis of load tests

2009· article· en· W2154941531 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBaseline (sea)Load testingThroughputReliability engineeringSystem under testSystem testingTest (biology)Real-time computingTest caseMachine learningEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of a load test is to uncover functional and performance problems of a system under load. Performance problems refer to the situations where a system suffers from unexpectedly high response time or low throughput. It is difficult to detect performance problems in a load test due to the absence of formally defined performance objectives and the large amount of data that must be examined. In this paper, we present an approach which automatically analyzes the execution logs of a load test for performance problems. We first derive the system's performance baseline from previous runs. Then we perform an in-depth performance comparison against the derived performance baseline. Case studies show that our approach produces few false alarms (with a precision of 77%) and scales well to large industrial systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207