Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of Mobile-Agent Middleware: A Hierarchical Approach

  • Marios Dikaiakos
  • Melinos Kyriakou
  • George Samaras
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2240)

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a hierarchical framework for the quantitative performance evaluation of mobile-agent middleware platforms. This framework is established upon an abstraction of the typical structure of mobile-agent systems and is implemented through a set of benchmarks, metrics, and experimental parameters. We implement these benchmarks on three mobile agent platforms (Aglets, Concordia and Voyager) and run numerous experiments to validate our framework and compare the mobile-agent middleware environments quantitatively. We present results collected from our experiments, which help us understand MA performance and identify existing bottlenecks. Our results can be used to guide the improvement of existing platforms, the performance analysis of other systems, and the performance prediction of MA applications.

Keywords

Mobile Agent Application Framework Sustained Rate Remote Place Mobile Agent System 
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.
    Y. Aridov and D. Lange. Agent Design Patterns: Elements of Agent Application Design. In Proceedings of Autonomous Agents 1998, pages 108–115. ACM, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Breugst, I. Busse, S. Covaci, and T. Magedanz. Grasshopper-A Mobile Agent Platform for IN Based Service Environments. In Proceedings of IEEE IN Workshop 1998, pages 279–290, Bordeaux, France, May 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Budd. Understanding Object-Oriented Programming with JAVA. Addison-Wesley, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Lange and M. Oshima. Programming and Deploying Java Mobile Agents with Aglets. Addison Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Dikaiakos, M. Kyriacou, and G. Samaras. Benchmarking Mobile-agent Systems. Technical Report TR-01-2, Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, May 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Dikaiakos and G. Samaras. A Performance Analysis Framework for Mobile-Agent Platforms. In Wagner and Rana, editors, Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scaleable Multi-Agent Systems, volume 1887 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Glass. Overviewof Voyager: ObjectSpace’s Product Family for State-of-the-Art Distributed Computing. Technical report, ObjectSpace, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Koblick. Concordia. Communications of the ACM, 42(3):96–99, March 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. B. Lange and M. Oshima. Seven Good Reasons for Mobile Agents. Communications of the ACM, 42(3):88–91, March 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitsubishi Electric ITA. Concordia Developer’s Guide, October 1998. http://www.meitca.com/HSL/Projects/Concordia.
  11. 11.
    ObjectSpace. ObjectSpace Voyager, General Magic Odyssey, IBM Aglets. A Comparison. ObjectSpace, June 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Samaras, M. Dikaiakos, C. Spyrou, and A. Liverdos. Mobile Agent Platforms for Web-Databases: A Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment. In Proceedings of the Joint Symposium ASA/MA’99. First International Symposium on Agent Systems and Applications (ASA’99). Third International Symposium on Mobile Agents (MA’ 99), pages 50–64. IEEE-Computer Society, October 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Wong, N. Paciorek, T. Walsh, J. DiCelie, M. Young, and B. Peet. Concordia: An Infrastructure for Collaborating Mobile Agents. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1219, 1997. http://www.meitca.com/HSL/Projects/Concordia/.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Woodside. Software Performance Evaluation by Models. In C. Lindemann G. Haring and M. Reiser, editors, Performance Evaluation: Origins and Directions, LNCS. State of the Art Survey, pages 283–304. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marios Dikaiakos
    • 1
  • Melinos Kyriakou
    • 1
  • George Samaras
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCYPRUS

Personalised recommendations