A Framework for Detecting System Performance Anomalies Using Tracing Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in technology and computing power have led to the emergence of complex and large-scale software architectures in recent years. However, they are prone to performance anomalies due to various reasons, including software bugs, hardware failures, and resource contentions. Performance metrics represent the average load on the system and do not help discover the cause of the problem if abnormal behavior occurs during software execution. Consequently, system experts have to examine a massive amount of low-level tracing data to determine the cause of a performance issue. In this work, we propose an anomaly detection framework that reduces troubleshooting time, besides guiding developers to discover performance problems by highlighting anomalous parts in trace data. Our framework works by collecting streams of system calls during the execution of a process using the Linux Trace Toolkit Next Generation(LTTng), sending them to a machine learning module that reveals anomalous subsequences of system calls based on their execution times and frequency. Extensive experiments on real datasets from two different applications (e.g., MySQL and Chrome), for varying scenarios in terms of available labeled data, demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach to distinguish normal sequences from abnormal ones.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".