Paper detail

Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?

Configurable software systems can be tuned for better performance. Leveraging on some Pareto optimizers, recent work has shifted from tuning for a single, time-related performance objective to two intrinsically different objectives that assess distinct performance aspects of the system, each with varying aspirations. Before we design better optimizers, a crucial engineering decision to make therein is how to handle the performance requirements with clear aspirations in the tuning process. For this, the community takes two alternative optimization models: either quantifying and incorporating the aspirations into the search objectives that guide the tuning, or not considering the aspirations during the search but purely using them in the later decision-making process only. However, despite being a crucial decision that determines how an optimizer can be designed and tailored, there is a rather limited understanding of which optimization model should be chosen under what particular circumstance, and why. In this paper, we seek to close this gap. Firstly, we do that through a review of over 426 papers in the literature and 14 real-world requirements datasets. Drawing on these, we then conduct a comprehensive empirical study that covers 15 combinations of the state-of-the-art performance requirement patterns, four types of aspiration space, three Pareto optimizers, and eight real-world systems/environments, leading to 1,296 cases of investigation. We found that (1) the realism of aspirations is the key factor that determines whether they should be used to guide the tuning; (2) the given patterns and the position of the realistic aspirations in the objective landscape are less important for the choice, but they do matter to the extents of improvement; (3) the available tuning budget can also influence the choice for unrealistic aspirations but it is insignificant under realistic ones.