This blog relates to experiences in the Systems Capacity and Availability areas, focusing on statistical filtering and pattern recognition and BI analysis and reporting techniques (SPC, APC, MASF, 6-SIGMA, SEDS/SETDS and other)
I have got the comment on my previous post “ BIRT based Control Chart “ with questions about how actually in BIRT the data are prepared for ...
Your are welcome to post to this blog any message related to the Capacity, Performance and/or Availability of computer systems. Just put you...
Friday, January 20, 2012
Control Chart usage in "Automated Analysis of Load Testing Results"
Searching again in http://academic.research.microsoft.com I have found that not only CMG papers have some discussions about anomaly detection/control charting subjects in the Systems Capacity Management field. Below are a few examples:
1. Automated Analysis of Load Testing Results , Zhen Ming Jiang published in Conference: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis - ISSTA , pp. 143-146, 2010
From Abstract of the paper: ".. This dissertation proposes
automated approaches to detect functional and performance
problems in a load test by mining the recorded load testing
data (execution logs and performance metrics).."
The paper has reference to three other ones (see below) related to the subject of this blog, I believe:
- I. A. Trubin and L. Merritt. Mainframe global and
workload level statistical exception detection system,
based on masf. In 2004 CMG Conference, 2004
Here is the content where my paper was referenced:
"... It is di cult for humans to interpret raw performance
metrics, as it is not clear how to categorize these raw met-
ric values into performance categories (e.g. high, medium
and low). Furthermore, some data mining algorithms (e.g.
Navie Bayes Classi er) only take discrete values as input.
We are currently exploring generic approaches to classify
performance metrics into discrete performance categories us-
ing techniques like control charts [Trubin's CMG'04 paper] to facilitate our future
work in performance analysis...."
BTW Here is a slide with MIPS control chart from that paper presentation:
2. L. Cherkasova, K. Ozonat, N. Mi, J. Symons, and
E. Smirni. Anomaly? application change? or workload
change? towards automated detection of application
performance anomaly and change. In IEEE
International Conference on Dependable Systems and
2. B. Anton, M. Leonardo, and P. Fabrizio. Ava:
Automated interpretation of dynamically detected
anomalies. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth
International Symposium on Software Testing and
I plan to find and read the last two papers and maybe to report something here....
Posted by Igor Trubin at 10:21 AM
Labels: anomaly detection, CMG 2004, Control Chart, Load Testing, SEDS
He started in 1979 as IBM/370 system engineer. In 1986 he got his PhD. in Robotics at St. Petersburg Technical University (Russia) and then worked as a professor teaching CAD/CAM, Robotics for 12 years. He published 30+ papers and made several presentations for conferences related to the Robotics and Artificial Intelligent fields. In 1999 he moved to the US, worked at Capital One bank as a Capacity Planner. His first CMG.org paper was written and presented in 2001. The next one, "Exception Detection System Based on MASF Technique," won a Best Paper award at CMG'02 and was presented at UKCMG'03 in Oxford, England. He made other tech. presentations at IBM z/Series Expo, SPEC.org, Southern and Central Europe CMG and ran several workshops covering his original method of Anomaly and Change Point Detection (Perfomalist.com). Author of “Performance Anomaly Detection” class (at CMG.com). Worked 2 years as the Capacity team lead for IBM, worked for SunTrust Bank for 3 years and then at IBM for 3 years as Sr. IT Architect. Now he works for Capital One bank as IT Manager at the Cloud Engineering and since 2015 he is a member of CMG.org Board of Directors. Runs UT channel iTrubin
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete