1 / 34

Fast-Forward Runtime Monitoring — An Industrial Case Study

Fast-Forward Runtime Monitoring — An Industrial Case Study. Christian Colombo Gordon Pace University of Malta. Runtime Verification in Industry. Fear of intrusiveness Code modification Slowdown. Runtime Verification in Industry. Fear of intrusiveness Code modification Slowdown.

paloma
Télécharger la présentation

Fast-Forward Runtime Monitoring — An Industrial Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fast-Forward Runtime Monitoring— An Industrial Case Study Christian Colombo Gordon Pace University of Malta

  2. Runtime Verification in Industry • Fear of intrusiveness • Code modification • Slowdown

  3. Runtime Verification in Industry • Fear of intrusiveness • Code modification • Slowdown

  4. Asynchronous Monitoring

  5. Problem • It may take too long for the monitor to come/remain up to scratch with the system • During initialisation • During heavy load on system • If monitoring resources are low when compared to system resources

  6. Approach • Pausing the system might not always be desirable

  7. Approach • Fast-forwarding the monitor might be a better option

  8. Approach System Monitor System Monitor

  9. Approach System Monitor System Monitor Monitor

  10. Approach System Monitor System Monitor

  11. Fast-Forwarding • Ideal • Failure in normal Failure in fast-forward • Over approximation (high risk) • Failure in normal Failure in fast-forward • Under approximation (low risk) • Failure in normal Failure in fast-forward

  12. Specification a b a b b c a

  13. Normal Monitor Fast-forward Monitor Monitor Configurations Monitor Configurations Normal Trace Abstracted Trace a c f e w e r w r e r t t r y b q x z b y k w g h g s y n m p

  14. Normal Monitor Fast-forward Monitor 2 1 1 3 3 a c f e w e r w r e r t t r y b q x z b y k w g h g s y n m p

  15. Normal Monitor Fast-forward Monitor 2 1 1 3 3 a c f e w e r w r e r t t r y b q x z b y k w g h g s y n m p 1 3 z b y k w g h g s y n m p

  16. Normal Monitor Fast-forward Monitor 2 1 1 3 3 a c f e w e r w r e r t t r y b q x z b y k w g h g s y n m p 2 1 1 3 3 a c f e w e r w r e r t t r y b q x z b y k w g h g s y n m p

  17. Comparing Monitor Configurations • To cater for quasi-identical monitor configuration states the notion of equality is defined as: • B(1) = {w,w’,w’’} • 1 =c 2 iff B(1)=B(2) w w w' 1 w' 2 w'' w''

  18. Faithful Fast-Forwarding α(w) w w' α(w') 1 1 w'' α(w'')

  19. Over Approximation α(w) w w' α(w') 1 1 α(w'')

  20. Under Approximation α(w) w w' α(w') 1 1 w''

  21. Case Study

  22. Case Study Initialisation • System has been running for years • Thousands of users are already active • How many monitors to be instantiated? • What is their monitor state? • What are their variable values?

  23. Example Trace U1: Dormant U2: Load U2: Purchase U1: Thaw U1: Load U1: Purchase U3: Transfer U3: Load U1: Transfer U4: Dormant U5: Dormant U1: Purchase U6: Transfer U5: Thaw U6: Load

  24. Example – Monitors Trace Monitors U1: Dormant U2: Load U2: Purchase U1: Thaw U1: Load U1: Purchase U3: Transfer U3: Load U1: Transfer U4: Dormant U5: Dormant U1: Purchase U6: Transfer U5: Thaw U6: Load U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6

  25. Example – Monitor States Trace Monitors Monitor States U1: Dormant U2: Load U2: Purchase U1: Thaw U1: Load U1: Purchase U3: Transfer U3: Load U1: Transfer U4: Dormant U5: Dormant U1: Purchase U6: Transfer U5: Thaw U6: Load U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U1: NonDorm U2: NonDorm U3: NonDorm U4: Dorm U5: Thawed U6: NonDorm

  26. Example – Timers Trace Monitors Monitor States Dormancy Timer Reset 4: U1: Dormant 9: U2: Load 14: U2: Purchase 17: U1: Thaw 28: U1: Load 34: U1: Purchase 45: U3: Transfer 49: U3: Load 67: U1: Transfer 71: U4: Dormant 73: U5: Dormant 82: U1: Purchase 90: U6: Transfer 94: U5: Thaw 107: U6: Load U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U1: NonDorm U2: NonDorm U3: NonDorm U4: Dorm U5: Thawed U6: NonDorm U1: 82 U2: 14 U3: 49 U4: n/a U5: n/a U6: 107 Thaw Timer Reset U1: n/a U2: n/a U3: n/a U4: n/a U5: 94 U6: n/a

  27. Code

  28. Code

  29. Code

  30. Code

  31. Theory Instantiation System Monitor System SQL Monitor SQL Monitor

  32. Results • Normal monitoring • 15 hours / week’s data • Fast-forwarded monitoring • 0.6 hours/ week’s data • Fast-forward : Normal 1 : 25

  33. Applications of Results • Fast monitor bootstrapping • Burst monitoring • Synchronous/asynchronous monitoring

  34. Conclusion • Fine-tune system-monitor relationship • An affective way of initialising monitors quickly • Applied to an industrial case study with promising results • No automated way • Not easy to write fast monitors

More Related