Advertisement

Mobile-Agent versus Client/Server Performance: Scalability in an Information-Retrieval Task

  • Robert S. Gray
  • David Kotz
  • Ronald A. Peterson
  • Joyce Barton
  • Daria Chacón
  • Peter Gerken
  • Martin Hofmann
  • Jeffrey Bradshaw
  • Maggie Breedy
  • Renia Jeffers
  • Niranjan Suri
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2240)

Abstract

Building applications with mobile agents often reduces the bandwidth required for the application, and improves performance. The cost is increased server workload. There are, however, few studies of the scalability of mobile-agent systems. We present scalability experiments that compare four mobile-agent platforms with a traditional client/server approach. The four mobile-agent platforms have similar behavior, but their absolute performance varies with underlying implementation choices. Our experiments demonstrate the complex interaction between environmental, application, and system parameters.

Keywords

Mobile Agent Task Time Performance Ratio Query Rate Keyword Query 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Baldi and G. P. Picco. Evaluating the tradeoffs of mobile code design paradigms in network management applications. In Proc. of the Twentieth International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 146–155, Kyoto, Japan, April 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. M. Bradshaw, S. Dutfield, P. Benoit, and J. D. Woolley.KAoS: Toward an industrial-strength open agent architecture. In J. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents, pages 375–418. AAAI/MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. M. Bradshaw, N. Suri, A. K. Cañas, R. Davis, K. Ford, R. Huffman, R. Jeffers, and T. Reichherzer.Terraforming Cyberspace. IEEE Computer, 34(7), July 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Chacón, J. McCormick, S. McGrath, and C. Stoneking. Rapid application development using agent itinerary patterns. Technical Report#01-01, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories, March 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Dikaiakos, M. Kyriakou, and G. Samaras. Performance evaluation of mobileagent middleware: A hierarchical approach. In Proc. of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Mobile Agents, LNCS, Atlanta, GA, December 2001. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. D. Dikaiakos and G. Samaras. A performance analysis framework for mobileagent systems. In Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agents, and Scaleable Multi-Agent Systems, volume 1887 of LNCS, pages 180–187. Springer-Verlag, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Gray. Agent Tcl: A flexible and secure mobile-agent system. PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, June 1997. Available as Dartmouth Computer Science Technical Report TR98-327.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. S. Gray, D. Kotz, G. Cybenko, and D. Rus. D’Agents: Security in a multiplelanguage, mobile-agent system. In G. Vigna, editor, Mobile Agents and Security, volume 1419 of LNCS, pages 154–187. Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Ismail and D. Hagimont. A performance evaluation of the mobile agent paradigm. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 34(10):306–313, October 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Johansen. Mobile agent applicability. In Proc. of the 2nd Int’l Workshop on Mobile Agents, volume 1477 of LNCS, pages 80–98, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1998. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Küpper and A. S. Park. Stationary vs. mobile user agents in future mobile telecommunication networks. In Proc. of the 2nd Int’l Workshop on Mobile Agents, volume 1477 of LNCS, pages 112–123, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1998. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. McGrath, D. Chacón, and K. Whitebread. Intelligent mobile agents in the military domain. In Proc. of the Autonomous Agents 2000 Workshop on Agents in Industry, Barcelona, Spain, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Straβer and M. Schwehm. A performance model for mobile agent systems. In Proc. of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications, volume II, pages 1132–1140, Las Vegas, July 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Suri, J. M. Bradshaw, M. R. Breedy, P. T. Groth, G. A. Hill, and R. Jeffers. Strong mobility and fine-grained resource control in NOMADS. In Proc. of the Second Int’l Symp. on Agent Systems and Applications and Fourth Int’l Symp. on Mobile Agents (ASA/MA2000), volume 1882 of LNCS, pages 2–15, Zurich,Switzerland, September 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Theilmann and K. Rothermel. Optimizing the dissemination of mobile agents for distributed information filtering. IEEE Concurrency, 8(2), April–June 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Woodside. Scalability metrics and analysis of mobile agent systems. In Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agents, and Scaleable Multi-Agent Systems, volume 1887 of LNCS, pages 234–245. Springer-Verlag, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Gray
    • 1
  • David Kotz
    • 1
  • Ronald A. Peterson
    • 1
  • Joyce Barton
    • 2
  • Daria Chacón
    • 2
  • Peter Gerken
    • 2
  • Martin Hofmann
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Bradshaw
    • 3
  • Maggie Breedy
    • 3
  • Renia Jeffers
    • 3
  • Niranjan Suri
    • 3
  1. 1.Dartmouth College Computer ScienceHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Lockheed-Martin Advanced Technology LaboratoryCamdenUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Human and Machine CognitionUniv. of West Florida (Pensacola)USA

Personalised recommendations