Methodological Principles for Reproducible Performance Evaluation in Cloud Computing
Open accessAbstract
The rapid adoption and the diversification of cloud computing technology exacerbate the importance of a sound experimental methodology for this domain. This work investigates how to measure and report performance in the cloud, and how well the cloud research community is already doing it. We propose a set of eight important methodological principles that combine best-practices from nearby fields with concepts applicable only to clouds, and with new ideas about the time-accuracy trade-off. We show how these principles are applicable using a practical use-case experiment. To this end, we analyze the ability of the newly released SPEC Cloud IaaS benchmark to follow the principles, and showcase real-world experimental studies in common cloud environments that meet the principles. Last, we report on a systematic literature review including top conferences and journals in the field, from 2012 to 2017, analyzing if the practice of reporting cloud performance measurements follows the proposed eight principles. Worryingly, this systematic survey and the subsequent two-round human reviews, reveal that few of the published studies follow the eight experimental principles. We conclude that, although these important principles are simple and basic, the cloud community is yet to adopt them broadly to deliver sound measurement of cloud environments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 82 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Papadopoulos, A. V., Versluis, L., Bauer, A., Herbst, N., Kistowski, J. V., Ali-Eldin, A., Abad, C. L., Amaral, J. N., Tuma, P., & Iosup, A.
- Affiliations
- Mälardalen University (SE)
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Würzburg (DE)
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral (EC)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2021-08-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1528-1543
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- 2326-3881
- OpenAlex
- W2958385005
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 12.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.vu.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning (GMT14-0032)
- Knowledge Foundation
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KO 3445/11-1)
- National Science Foundation (1836752)
- Wallenberg Foundation
- Swedish strategic research programme eSSENCE
- Google Faculty Research Award
- National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (783162)
- Dutch NWO Vidi
- Oracle
- Intel Labs
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Keywords
- cloud computing, performance evaluation, reproducibility, experimental method, performance measurement, performance reporting, IAA
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