Title | ||
---|---|---|
Using computational intelligence to identify performance bottlenecks in a computer system |
Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
System administrators have to analyze a number of system parameters to identify performance bottlenecks in a system. The major contribution of this paper is a utility - EvoPerf - which has the ability to autonomously monitor different system-wide parameters, requiring no user intervention, to accurately identify performance based anomalies (or bottlenecks). EvoPerf uses Windows Perfmon utility to collect a number of performance counters from the kernel of Windows OS. Subsequently, we show that artificial intelligence based techniques - using performance counters - can be used successfully to design an accurate and efficient performance monitoring utility. We evaluate feasibility of six classifiers - UCS, GAssist-ADI, GAssist-Int, NN-MLP, NN-RBF and J48 - and conclude that all classifiers provide more than 99% classification accuracy with less than 1% false positives. However, the processing overhead of J48 and neural networks based classifiers is significantly smaller compared with evolutionary classifiers. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2010 | 10.1007/978-3-642-15844-5_31 | PPSN (1) |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
computational intelligence,artificial intelligence,system parameter,performance bottleneck,computer system,windows os,classification accuracy,windows perfmon utility,performance counter,system administrator,efficient performance monitoring utility,different system-wide parameter,false positive,neural network,artificial intelligent | Kernel (linear algebra),Data mining,Microsoft Windows,Computational intelligence,Computer science,Virtual memory,C4.5 algorithm,Artificial intelligence,Artificial neural network,Machine learning,False positive paradox,Network interface | Conference |
Volume | ISSN | ISBN |
6238 | 0302-9743 | 3-642-15843-9 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 16 |
Authors | ||
3 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Faraz Ahmed | 1 | 124 | 8.63 |
Farrukh Shahzad | 2 | 55 | 4.00 |
Muddassar Farooq | 3 | 1221 | 83.47 |