Predicting Performance Anomalies in Software Systems at Run-time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High performance is a critical factor to achieve and maintain the success of a software system. Performance anomalies represent the performance degradation issues (e.g., slowing down in system response times) of software systems at run-time. Performance anomalies can cause a dramatically negative impact on users’ satisfaction. Prior studies propose different approaches to detect anomalies by analyzing execution logs and resource utilization metrics after the anomalies have happened. However, the prior detection approaches cannot predict the anomalies ahead of time; such limitation causes an inevitable delay in taking corrective actions to prevent performance anomalies from happening. We propose an approach that can predict performance anomalies in software systems and raise anomaly warnings in advance. Our approach uses a Long-Short Term Memory neural network to capture the normal behaviors of a software system. Then, our approach predicts performance anomalies by identifying the early deviations from the captured normal system behaviors. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate our approach using two real-world software systems (i.e., Elasticsearch and Hadoop). We compare the performance of our approach with two baselines. The first baseline is one state-to-the-art baseline called Unsupervised Behavior Learning. The second baseline predicts performance anomalies by checking if the resource utilization exceeds pre-defined thresholds. Our results show that our approach can predict various performance anomalies with high precision (i.e., 97–100%) and recall (i.e., 80–100%), while the baselines achieve 25–97% precision and 93–100% recall. For a range of performance anomalies, our approach can achieve sufficient lead times that vary from 20 to 1,403 s (i.e., 23.4 min). We also demonstrate the ability of our approach to predict the performance anomalies that are caused by real-world performance bugs. For predicting performance anomalies that are caused by real-world performance bugs, our approach achieves 95–100% precision and 87–100% recall, while the baselines achieve 49–83% precision and 100% recall. The obtained results show that our approach outperforms the existing anomaly prediction approaches and is able to predict performance anomalies in real-world 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".