|author(s)||Rick Rabiser, Klaus Schmid, Holger Eichelberger, Michael Vierhauser, Sam Guinea and Paul Grünbacher|
|title||A Domain Analysis of Resource and Requirements Monitoring: Towards a Comprehensive Model of the Software Monitoring Domain|
|publication type||Beitrag zu Zeitung oder Zeitschrift|
|journal||Information and Software Technology|
|note||Free download until 2019-06-07: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1Yvdh3O8rCSPd~|
[Context] Complex and heterogeneous software systems need to be monitored as their full behavior often only emerges at runtime, e.g., when interacting with other systems or the environment. Software monitoring approaches observe and check properties or quality attributes of software systems during operation. Such approaches have been developed in diverse communities for various kinds of systems and purposes. For instance, requirements monitoring aims to check at runtime whether a software system adheres to its requirements, while resource or performance monitoring collects information about the consumption of computing resources by the monitored system. Many venues publish research on software monitoring, often using diverse terminology, and focusing on different monitoring aspects and phases. The lack of a comprehensive overview of existing research often leads to re-inventing the wheel. [Objective] We provide a domain model to structure and systematize the field of software monitoring, starting with requirements and resource monitoring. [Method] We developed an initial domain model based on (i) our extensive experiences with requirements and resource monitoring, (ii) earlier efforts to develop a comparison framework for monitoring approaches, and (iii) an earlier systematic literature review on requirements monitoring frameworks. We then systematically analyzed 47 existing requirements and resource monitoring approaches to iteratively refine the domain model and to develop a reference architecture for software monitoring approaches. [Results] Our domain model covers the key elements of monitoring approaches and allows analyzing their commonalities and differences. Together with the reference architecture, our domain model supports the development of integrated monitoring solutions. We provide details on 47 approaches we analyzed with the model to assess its coverage. We also evaluate the reference architecture by instantiating it for five different monitoring solutions. [Conclusions] We conclude that requirements and resource monitoring have more commonalities than differences, which is promising for the future integration of existing monitoring solutions.