The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Maximum Sustainable Throughput Evaluation Using an Adaptive Method for Stream Processing Platforms
Open accessAbstract
The volume and type of streaming data is increasing rapidly, thus, real-time processing scenarios for streaming data have continued to increase. The inherent volatility of streaming data causes large changes in the throughput volatility of stream processing platforms, making evaluations of the maximum sustainable throughput (MST) for such platforms a challenge. To address these problems and improve the low efficiency of manual evaluations, a naïve method is typically used to evaluate the MST of platforms by periodically measuring throughput. The throughput volatility is detected using a skip sliding window that is defined as a bounded sequence in which a limited number of throughput values stored to measure volatility in a skipping fashion in each data growth cycle, which is a fixed time interval with respect to the continuous data rate increases. A skipping sliding window that is used to describe the procedure with which the MST is calculated in an approximate way is based on a sliding window, which is used usually in the context of stateful streaming operators. Then, according to the throughput volatility, the method judges whether the MST has been reached using a latency guarantee. However, because this method has low efficiency and a large error rate, we propose an adaptive MST evaluation method that adds a data-growth factor function to the naïve method cycle that dynamically and adaptively tunes the data rate for each data growth cycle. The experimental results from four open-source benchmarks running on three mainstream stream processing platforms show that the adaptive MST evaluation method has a lower error rate and executes faster compared with the naïve evaluation method. Moreover, the proposed method is insensitive to parameter variations and is suitable for mainstream stream processing platforms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other recent studies benchmark qualities such as throughput, latency, and fault-tolerance of stream processing systems.
“there are other recent studies that benchmark qualities such as throughput (Bordin et al., 2020;Chu et al., 2020;van Dongen and van den Poel, 2020), latency (Bordin et al., 2020;van Dongen and van den Poel, 2020;Hesse et al., 2021), and fault-tolerance (van Dongen and van den Poel, 2021b).”
From Benchmarking scalability of stream processing frameworks deployed as microservices in the cloud (2024) · cites this paper as Chu et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- 2019, HiBench
- 2019, Stream Benchmark
- 10.1109/ICDCS.2015.48 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICDCS.2015.49 · DOI
- 10.1145/2814576.2814808 · DOI
- 10.1109/BigData.2015.7363749 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICDE.2018.00169 · DOI
- 10.1145/3093742.3093923 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.procs.2016.05.322 · DOI
- perera, 2016, Reproducible experiments for comparing Apache Flink and Apache spark on public clouds, arXiv 1610 04493
- 10.1109/GLOCOM.2016.7841533 · DOI
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2016.22 · DOI
- 10.1145/3016078.2851148 · DOI
- carbone, 2015, Apache flink: Stream and batch processing in a single engine, Bull IEEE Comput Soc Tech Committee Data Eng, 36, 1
- 10.1109/TPDS.2012.24 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.compind.2019.02.008 · DOI
- 10.1145/2723372.2742788 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/HPCA.2014.6835958 · DOI
- 10.1145/2588555.2595641 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/BigData.2015.7363773 · DOI
- 10.1109/IPDPSW.2016.138 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2611286.2611294 · DOI
- 10.5465/amr.2014.0280 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICTC.2017.8191055 · DOI
- sun, 2018, Performance evaluation and analysis of multiple scenarios of big data stream computing on storm platform, KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst, 12, 1
- yan, 2017, Performance analysis of storm in a real-world big data stream computing environment, Proc Int Conf Collaborative Comput Netw Appl Worksharing, 624
- 10.1109/MASCOTS.2017.21 · DOI
- 10.1109/CCGRID.2018.00029 · DOI
- 10.1145/2320765.2320789 · DOI
- 10.1109/IPDPS.2009.5161036 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Benchmarking scalability of stream processing frameworks deployed as microservices in the cloud
Henning, S., & Hasselbring, W. (2024) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111879 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Chu, Z., Yu, J., & Hamdull, A.
- Affiliations
- Xinjiang University (CN)
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 40977-40988
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3007449025
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61862060, 61462079, 61562086315, 61562078)
- Xinjiang University (XJUBSCX-201901)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
- Keywords
- sliding window, latency guarantees, real-time data processing, data streams
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review