The present application is related to co-pending applications entitled Method and System for Probing in a Network Environment, application Ser. No. 10/062,329, filed on Jan. 31, 2002, Method and System for Performance Reporting in a Network Environment, application Ser. No. 10/062,369, filed on Jan. 31, 2002, End to End Component Mapping and Problem-Solving in a Network Environment, application Ser. No. 10/122,001, filed on Apr. 11, 2002, and Graphics for End to End Component Mapping and Problem-Solving in a Network Environment, application Ser. No. 10/125,619, filed on Apr. 18, 2002. These co-pending applications are assigned to the assignee of the present application, and herein incorporated by reference. A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The present invention relates generally to information handling, and more particularly to methods and systems for evaluating the performance of information handling in a network environment.
Various approaches have been proposed for monitoring, simulating, or testing web sites. Examples include U.S. Pat. No. 6,278,966 B1 (Howard, et al., Aug. 21, 2001), Method and System for Emulating Web Site Traffic to Identify Web Site Usage Patterns. However, this example addresses substantially different problems (problems of simulation and hypothetical phenomena), and thus is significantly different from the present invention. Other examples include U.S. Pat. No. 6,078,956 (Bryant, et al., Jun. 20, 2000) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,787,254 (Maddalozzo, et al., Jul. 28, 1998). Other examples include services available from vendors such as Atesto Technologies Inc., Keynote Systems, and Mercury Interactive Corporation. These services may involve a script that runs on a probe computer. The examples mentioned above do not necessarily allow some useful comparisons.
It may be very useful to measure the performance of an application such as a web site, or some other application accessible to a number of users via a network. Concerning two or more such applications, it may be very useful to compare measurements of performance. However, accurate comparisons may be hampered by inconsistent measurements. Inconsistent or heavily customized measurement techniques are common. There are no generally-accepted guidelines or standards for measurement techniques to be used on applications that have been deployed in a production environment. Although the use of a probe is common, there are highly variable parameters for probing, such as values for timeouts, or sampling intervals for example. Inconsistent measurement techniques result in problems such as unreliable performance data, and increased costs for training and administration. Thus there is a need for systems and methods that solve problems related to inconsistent measurement.
An example of a solution to problems mentioned above comprises: providing a measurement process including: (a) providing a script; (b) setting threshold values; (c) obtaining a first probe's measurement of an applicaton's performance, according to said script; (d) obtaining a second probe's measurement of said application's performance, according to said script; and (e) mapping said measurements to said threshold values; utilizing said measurement process for a plurality of applications; and utilizing substantially the same measurement parameters for said plurality of applications, whereby said plurality of applications may be compared.
Another example of a solution comprises planning an application, setting threshold values, documenting said threshold values, developing said application, and measuring said application's performance against said threshold values. In some cases, such a solution may further comprise deploying said application, providing an operations measurement policy for said application, and providing probing solutions for said application.
A better understanding of the present invention can be obtained when the following detailed description is considered in conjunction with the following drawings. The use of the same reference symbols in different drawings indicates similar or identical items.
The examples that follow involve the use of one or more computers and may involve the use of one or more communications networks. The present invention is not limited as to the type of computer on which it runs, and not limited as to the type of network used.
The following are definitions of terms used in the description of the present invention and in the claims:
While the computer system described in
In the example in
For example, comparing applications may involve comparing answers to questions such as: What proportion of the time is an application available to its users? How stable is this availability figure over a period of weeks or months? How much time does it take to complete a common transaction step (e.g. a log-on step)?
Turning now to some details of example implementations, a standard policy for operations measurements (appropriate for measuring the performance of two or more applications) was developed. This measurement policy facilitated consistent assessment of IBM's portfolio of e-business initiatives. In a similar way, a measurement policy could be developed for other applications, utilized by some other organization, according to the teachings of the present invention.
This measurement policy was utilized for applications such as: an application that creates customers' orders; an application utilized in fulfilling customers' orders; an application that responds to customers' inquiries; and an application that supports real-time transactions. In other words, this measurement policy was utilized for applications that might affect operations of a business process, for example. Considering another aspect of this example, this measurement policy generally was utilized for customer-facing, web-based applications for which measurement was desired. Considering yet another aspect of this example, this measurement policy was utilized for evaluating measurement service offerings, whether offered within IBM or offered by an outside vendor.
The above-mentioned measurement policy comprised measuring the performance of an application continuously, 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, including an application's scheduled and unscheduled down time. The above-mentioned measurement policy comprised measuring the performance of an application from probe locations (symbolized by probes at 235 in
The above-mentioned measurement policy comprised utilizing a sampling interval of about 15 minutes (sampling 4 times per hour, for example, with an interval of about 15 minutes between one sample and the next). Preferably, a sampling interval of about 10 minutes to about 15 minutes may be used. The sampling interval may be greater than or equal to about 5 minutes. 5 minutes and 10 minutes are examples of intervals that may be used. The sampling interval also may be less than or equal to about 60 minutes. 55 minutes and 60 minutes are examples of intervals that may be used.
The above-mentioned measurement policy comprised probing transaction steps in a business process, and mapping each of said transaction steps to a performance target. For example, response times were measured on a transaction level. These transaction steps could be any steps involved in using an application. Some examples are steps involved in using a web site, a web application, web services, database management software, a customer relationship management system, an enterprise resource planning system, or an opportunity-management business process. Prior to using the measurement policy, each transaction step in a business process was identified and documented. One good way of documenting transaction steps is as follows. For example, transaction steps may be displayed in a table containing the transaction step number, step name, and a description of what action the end user takes to execute the step. For example a row in a table may read as follows. Step number: “NAQS2.” Step name: “Log on.” Description: “Enter Login ID/Password. Click on Logon button.”
The above-mentioned measurement policy comprised adjusting probing in some cases to represent a type of network connection that was common to an application's end users or customer base. A dial-up connection to the Internet, using a modem, or a wireless connection to a communications network, are two examples of users' network connections for which adjustment of probing might be appropriate. For example, probing was adjusted for a client base who used modems to connect to the Internet. Probing was adjusted or throttled to represent the network connection aspect of users' experience. Measurements were presented in this context Considering the modem example in more detail, two groups of modem users were identified: those using 28.8 K modems, and those using faster 56 K modems. Probing was adjusted to reflect the modem speed used by the group with the larger number of users. As an alternative approach, two separate adjustments could be implemented so that both groups of modem users were represented. Continuing the modem example, a service provider connected a probe (symbolized by probes at 235 in
Continuing with some details of example implementations, for measuring availability, the above-mentioned measurement policy comprised measuring availability of an application from at least two different probe locations. A preferred approach utilized at least two remote probes (symbolized by probes shown at 235), and utilized probe locations that were remote from an application's front end. A local probe and a remote probe (symbolized by probes shown at 221 and 235 in
The above-mentioned measurement policy comprised rating an application or a business process “available,” only if each of the transaction steps was successful within a timeout period. In one example, the policy required that each of said transaction steps be successful within approximately 45 seconds of the request, as a prerequisite to rating a business process “available.” Transactions that exceeded the 45-second threshold were considered failed transactions, and the business process was considered unavailable. Preferably, a timeout period of about 30 seconds to about 45 seconds may be used. The timeout period may be greater than or equal to about 15 seconds. 15 seconds and 20 seconds are examples of timeout periods that may be used. The timeout period also may be less than or equal to about 60 seconds. 55 seconds and 60 seconds are examples that may be used. Availability was measured on a business process level. A business process was mapped to an availability threshold. Reports (symbolized by report 242 in
Continuing with some details of example implementations, the same script was deployed on the local and remote probes, to measure the performance of the same application 201. (Two versions of a script could be considered to be the same script, if they differed slightly in software settings for example, such as settings for the above-mentioned algorithms to convert the measurement data to data that was adjusted to represent a modem connection.) The local probe 221 provided information that excluded the Internet, while the remote probes 235 provided information that included the Internet (shown at 290). Thus, the information could be compared to determine whether performance or availability problems were a function of application 201 itself (infrastructure-specific or application-specific), or a function of the Internet 290. In example implementations, probes measured response time for requests. The double-headed arrow connecting remote probes at 235 with application 201 symbolizes requests and responses. The double-headed arrow connecting local probe 221 with application 201 symbolizes requests and responses.
Continuing with some details of example implementations, we located application probes locally at hosting sites (e.g. local probe shown at 221, within data center 211) and remotely at relevant end-user sites (remote probes at 235). This not only exercised the application code and application hosting site infrastructure, but also probed the ability of the application and network to deliver data from the application hosting site to the remote end-user sites. End-to-end measurement of IBM external applications (symbolized by application 201 with web pages 202) for customers or business partners, for example, involved remote application probes (RAP's) on the Internet (remote probes at 235 shown within Internet 290). While we measured the user availability and performance from a customer perspective (remote probes at 235), we also measured the availability and performance of the application at the location where it was deployed (local probe shown at 221, within data center 211). This provided baseline performance measurement data, that could be used for analyzing the performance measurements from the remote probes (at 235).
In one example, Local probe 221 was implemented with a personal computer, utilizing IBM's Enterprise Probe Platform technology, but other kinds of hardware and software could be used. A local probe 221 was placed on the IBM network just outside the firewall at the center where the web site was hosted. A local probe 221 was used to probe one specific site per probe. There could be multiple scripts per site. A local probe 221 executed the script every 20 minutes, in one example. Intervals of other lengths also could be used. Please see the discussion of sampling intervals above. In one example, local application probe 221 automatically sent events to the management console 205 used by the operations department.
In one example, Local probe 221 sent to a database 251 the data produced by the measuring process. Database 251 was implemented by using IBM's DB2 technology, but other database management software could be used, such as ORACLE, INFORMIX, SYBASE, MYSQL, Microsoft Corporation's SQL SERVER, or similar software. For local probe data, an automated reporting tool (shown as report generator 231) ran continuously at set intervals, obtained data from database 251, and sent reports 241 via email to these IBM entities: the web site owner, the hosting center, and IBM's world wide command center. Reports 241 also could be posted on a web site at the set intervals. Report generator 231 was implemented by using the Perl scripting language and the AIX operating system. However, some other programming language could be used, and another operating system could be used, such as LINUX, or another form of UNIX, or some version of Microsoft Corporation's WINDOWS, or some other operating system. Note that in an alternative example, report generator 231 might obtain data from databases at 251 and at 222, then generate reports 241 and 242.
In one example, remote probes at 235 were implemented by contracting for probing services available from Mercury Interactive Corporation, but services from another vendor could be used, or remote probes could be implemented by other means (e.g. directly placing probes at various Internet Service Providers (ISP's)). A remote probe 235 may be used to probe one specific site per probe; a probe also has the capability of probing multiple sites. There could be multiple scripts per site. Remote probes 235 were located at various ISP's in parts of the world that the web site (symbolized by application 201) supported. In one example, a remote probe 235 executed the script every 60 minutes. Intervals of other lengths also could be used. Please see the discussion of sampling intervals above. If multiple remote probes at 235 are used, probe execution times may be staggered over the hour to ensure that the performance of the web site is being measured throughout the hour. Remote probes at 235 sent to a database 222 the data produced by the measuring process. In one example, Database 222 was implemented by using Mercury Interactive's database, but other database management software could be used, such as IBM's DB2, ORACLE, INFORM IX, SYBASE, MYSQL, Microsoft Corporation's SQL SERVER, or similar software. In one example, report generator 232 was implemented by using Mercury Interactive's software and web site, but another automated reporting tool could be used, such as the one described above for local probe data (shown as report generator 231). IBM's arrangement with Mercury Interactive included the following: Mercury Interactive's software at 232 used IBM's specifications (symbolized by “SLA specs” at 262) and created near-real-time reports (symbolized by report 242) in a format required by IBM; IBM's specifications and format were protected by a confidential disclosure agreement; the reports at 242 were supplied in a secure manner via Mercury Interactive's web site at 232; access to the reports was restricted to IBM entities (the web site owner, the hosting center, and IBM's world wide command center).
Turning now to some details of collecting data from a plurality of probes, Component Probes measure availability, utilization and performance of infrastructure components, including servers, LAN, and services. Local component probes (LCP's) may be deployed locally in hosting sites, service delivery centers or data centers (e.g. at 211). Network Probes measure network infrastructure response time and availability. Remote Network Probes (RNP's) may be deployed in a local hosting site or data center (e.g. at 211) if measuring the intranet or at Internet Service Provider (ISP) sites if measuring the Internet.
Application Probes measure availability and performance of applications and business processes.
Local Application Probe (LAP): Application probes deployed in a local hosting site or data center (e.g. at 211) are termed Local Application Probes.
Remote Application Probe (RAP): An application probe deployed from a remote location is termed a Remote Application Probe.
The concept of “probe” is a logical one. Thus for example, implementing a local application probe could actually consist of implementing multiple physical probes.
Providing a script for a probe would comprise defining a set of transactions that are frequently performed by end users. Employing a plurality of probes would comprise placing at least one remote probe (shown at 235 in
This example in
Blocks 602 and 610 are connected by an arrow, symbolizing that in the planning phase, customer requirements at 610 (e.g. targets for performance or availability) are understood and documented. Thus block 610 comprises setting threshold values, and documenting the threshold values. Work proceeds with developing the application at block 603. The documented threshold values may provide guidance and promote good design decisions in developing the application. Once developed, an application is evaluated against the threshold values. Thus the qualifying or testing phase at block 604, and block 610, are connected by an arrow, symbolizing measuring the application's performance against the threshold values at 610. This may lead to identifying an opportunity to improve the performance of an application, in the qualifying or testing phase at block 604.
As an application is deployed into a production environment, parameters are established to promote consistent measurement by probes. Thus the example in
In the example in
Block 702 represents setting threshold values. Threshold values may be derived from a service level agreement [SLA], or from sources shown in
Operations at 703, 704, and 705 were covered in the description given above for
Operations at 703, 704, and 705 may be performed repeatedly (shown by the “No” branch being taken at decision 706 and the path looping back to block 703) until the process is terminated (shown by the “Yes” branch being taken at decision 706, and the process terminating at block 707).
Regarding
In conclusion, we have shown examples of solutions to problems that are related to inconsistent measurement.
One of the possible implementations of the invention is an application, namely a set of instructions (program code) executed by a processor of a computer from a computer-usable medium such as a memory of a computer. Until required by the computer, the set of instructions may be stored in another computer memory, for example, in a hard disk drive, or in a removable memory such as an optical disk (for eventual use in a CD ROM) or floppy disk (for eventual use in a floppy disk drive), or downloaded via the Internet or other computer network. Thus, the present invention may be implemented as a computer-usable medium having computer-executable instructions for use in a computer. In addition, although the various methods described are conveniently implemented in a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by software, one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that such methods may be carried out in hardware, in firmware, or in more specialized apparatus constructed to perform the required method steps.
While the invention has been shown and described with reference to particular embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the foregoing and other changes in form and detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. The appended claims are to encompass within their scope all such changes and modifications as are within the true spirit and scope of this invention. Furthermore, it is to be understood that the invention is solely defined by the appended claims. It will be understood by those with skill in the art that if a specific number of an introduced claim element is intended, such intent will be explicitly recited in the claim, and in the absence of such recitation no such limitation is present. For non-limiting example, as an aid to understanding, the appended claims may contain the introductory phrases “at least one” or “one or more” to introduce claim elements. However, the use of such phrases should not be construed to imply that the introduction of a claim element by indefinite articles such as “a” or “an” limits any particular claim containing such introduced claim element to inventions containing only one such element, even when the same claim includes the introductory phrases “at least one” or “one or more” and indefinite articles such as “a” or “an;” the same holds true for the use in the claims of definite articles.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5295244 | Dev et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5459837 | Caccavale | Oct 1995 | A |
5504921 | Dev et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5581482 | Wiedenman et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5696701 | Burgess et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5742819 | Caccavale | Apr 1998 | A |
5787254 | Maddalozzo, Jr. et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5793753 | Hershey et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5812780 | Chen et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5835756 | Caccavale | Nov 1998 | A |
5872973 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5978475 | Schneier et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6000045 | Lewis | Dec 1999 | A |
6041349 | Sugauchi et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6041352 | Burdick et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6052733 | Mahalingam et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6055493 | Ries et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6070190 | Reps et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078956 | Bryant et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6108700 | Maccabee et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6141699 | Luzzi et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6151688 | Wipfel et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6163775 | Wlaschin et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6175832 | Luzzi et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6177886 | Billington et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6243396 | Somers | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6269330 | Cidon et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278694 | Wolf et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278966 | Howard et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279002 | Lenz et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6327550 | Vinberg et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6349325 | Newcombe et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6356205 | Salvo et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6397359 | Chandra et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401119 | Fuss et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6425006 | Chari et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430712 | Lewis | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6449739 | Landan | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6457143 | Yue | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6499117 | Tanaka | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6510463 | Farhat et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6550024 | Pagurek et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556659 | Bowman-Amuah | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6587878 | Merriam | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6701342 | Bartz et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6708137 | Carley | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6732168 | Bearden et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6734878 | DeLuca et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6738933 | Fraenkel et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6757543 | Moran et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6760719 | Hanson et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6763380 | Mayton et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6765864 | Natarajan et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6766278 | Liu et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6766368 | Jakobson et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6779032 | Hericourt | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792455 | DeLuca et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6792459 | Elnozahy et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6801940 | Moran et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807156 | Veres et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6832341 | Vijayan | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6853619 | Grenot | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6857020 | Chaar et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6859831 | Gelvin et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6868094 | Bordonaro et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6871324 | Hand et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6885302 | Seal et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6889222 | Zhao | May 2005 | B1 |
6892235 | Daude et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6901442 | Schwaller et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6904458 | Bishop et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6928471 | Pabari et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6934745 | Krautkremer | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6941358 | Joiner et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6944673 | Malan et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6944798 | Stephenson et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6983321 | Trinon et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7043549 | Breese et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7047291 | Breese et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
20020004828 | Davis et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020073195 | Hellerstein et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087882 | Schneier et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020097267 | Dinan et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020161875 | Raymond | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030061232 | Patterson | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030093460 | Kinney et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030120762 | Yepishin et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030145079 | Breese et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030145080 | Breese et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030167406 | Beavers | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040015846 | Haisraeli | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040064546 | Olsson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078684 | Friedman et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040205184 | Olsson et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040064546 A1 | Apr 2004 | US |