Defining windowing policies

For both offline and live optimization studies, it is possible to define how to identify the time windows that Akamas needs to consider for assessing the result of an experiment. Defining a windowing policy helps achieve reliable optimizations by excluding metrics data points that should not influence the score of an experiment.

The following two windowing policies are available:

• Trim windowing: discards the initial and final part of an experiment - e.g. to exclude warm-up and tear-down phases - trim windowing policy is the default (with entire interval selection whether no trimming is specified)

• Stability windowing: discard those parts that do not correspond to the most stable window - this leverages the Akamas features of automatically identifying the most stable window based on the user-specified specified criteria

Illustration of the trim and stability windowing policies

The Windowing policy page of the Study template section in the reference guide describes the corresponding structures. For offline optimization studies only, the Akamas UI allows the windowing policies to be defined as part of the visual procedure activated by the "Create a study" button (see the following figures).

Defining a trim windowing policy

Defining a stabilty windowing policy

Best Practices

The following sections provide general best practices on how to define suitable windowing policy.

Define windowing based on the optimization goal

In order to make the optimization process fully automated and unattended, Akamas automatically analyzes the time series of the collected metrics of each experiment and calculates the experiment score (all the system metrics will also be aggregated).

Based on the optimization goal, it is important to instruct Akamas on how to perform this experiment analysis, in particular, by also leveraging Akamas windowing policies.

For example, when optimizing an online or transactional application, there are two common scenarios:

1. Increase system performance (i.e. minimize response time) or reduce system costs (i.e. decrease resource footprint or cloud costs) while processing a given and fixed transaction volume (i.e. a load test);

2. Increase the maximum throughput a system can support (i.e., system capacity) while processing an increasing amount of load (e.g. a stress test).

In the first scenario, a load test scenario is typically used: the injected load (e.g. virtual users) ramps up for a period, followed by a steady state, with a final ramp-down period. From a performance engineering standpoint, since the goal is to assess the system performance during the steady state, the warm-up and tear-down periods can be discarded. This analysis can be automated by applying a windowing policy of type "trim" upon creating the optimization study, which makes Akamas automatically compute the experiment score by discarding a configurable warm-up and tear-down period.

In the second scenario, a stress test is typically used: the injected load follows a ramp with increasing levels of users, designed to stress the system up to its limit. In this case, a performance engineer is most likely interested in the maximum throughput the system can sustain before breaking down (possibly while matching a response time constraint). This analysis can be automated by applying a windowing policy of type "stability", which makes Akamas automatically compute the experiment score in the time window where the throughput was maximized but stable for a configurable period of time.

When optimizing a batch application, windowing is typically not required. In such scenarios, a typical goal is to minimize batch duration or aggregate resource utilization. Hence, there is no need to define any windowing policy: by default, the whole experiment timeframe is considered.

Finding an effective stability window

Setting up an effective stability window requires some knowledge of the test scenario and the variability of the environment.

As a general guideline it is recommended to run a baseline study with a stability window set to a low value, such as a value close to 0 or half of the expected mean of the metric, and then to inspect the results of the baseline to identify which window has been identified and update the standard deviation threshold accordingly. When using a continuous ramp the test has no plateaus, so the standard deviation threshold should be a bit higher to account for the increment of the traffic in the windowing period. On the contrary, when running a staircase test with many plateaus, the standard deviation can be smaller to identify a period of time with the same amount of users.

Applying the standard deviation filter to very stable metrics, such as the number of users, simplifies the definition of the standard deviation threshold but might hide some instability of the environment when subject to constant traffic. On the other hand, applying the threshold to a more direct measure of the performance, such as the throughput, makes it easier to identify the stability period of the application but might require more baseline experiments to identify the proper threshold value. The logs of the scoring phase provide useful insights into the maximum standard deviation found and the number of candidate windows that have been identified given a threshold value, which can be used to refine the threshold in a few baseline experiments.