U.S. patent application number 13/869977 was filed with the patent office on 2013-09-12 for method for ranking analysis tools.
This patent application is currently assigned to International Business Machines Corporation. The applicant listed for this patent is INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION. Invention is credited to Diane Christine CHALMERS, Nixon CHEAZ, James Young McVEA, JR., David M. STECHER.
Application Number | 20130238939 13/869977 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 49115164 |
Filed Date | 2013-09-12 |
United States Patent
Application |
20130238939 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
CHALMERS; Diane Christine ;
et al. |
September 12, 2013 |
METHOD FOR RANKING ANALYSIS TOOLS
Abstract
Analysis tools are used for resolving a service request for
software performance problems. Ranking of the analysis tools
includes measuring a plurality of times to resolution of a
plurality of service requests for software performance problems
after runnings of a plurality of analysis tools are initiated;
capturing sets of errors in the plurality of service requests;
storing identities of the plurality of analysis tools with the
times to resolution of the service requests and the sets of errors;
determining an average time to resolution of each of the plurality
of analysis tools for each set of errors; organizing the plurality
of analysis tools into one or more categories using the sets of
errors; and ranking the analysis tools within each category using
the average times to resolution of the analysis tools within the
category.
Inventors: |
CHALMERS; Diane Christine;
(Rochester, MN) ; CHEAZ; Nixon; (Cary, NC)
; McVEA, JR.; James Young; (Chapel Hill, NC) ;
STECHER; David M.; (Durham, NC) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION |
Armonk |
NY |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
International Business Machines
Corporation
Armonk
NY
|
Family ID: |
49115164 |
Appl. No.: |
13/869977 |
Filed: |
April 25, 2013 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
13413993 |
Mar 7, 2012 |
|
|
|
13869977 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
714/38.1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 11/3428 20130101;
G06F 11/079 20130101; G06F 11/3688 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
714/38.1 |
International
Class: |
G06F 11/36 20060101
G06F011/36 |
Claims
1. A method for ranking analysis tools by a computing system
comprising a processor, comprising: measuring by the processor a
time to resolution of a given software performance problem for each
run of any of a plurality of analysis tools; determining, by the
processor, an average time to resolution of the given software
performance problem for each of the plurality of analysis tools;
and ranking, by the processor, the plurality of analysis tools
using the average times to resolution of the given software
performance problems for the plurality of analysis tools.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the measuring the time to
resolution of the given software performance problem for each run
of any of the plurality of analysis tools comprises: receiving a
service request for the software performance problem, wherein the
service request includes one or more files; initiating a running of
a given analysis tool of the plurality of analysis tools; measuring
a time to resolution of the service request from a predetermined
time after the given analysis tool is initiated; capturing a set of
errors in the one or more files of the service request; and storing
an identity of the given analysis tool with the time to resolution
of the service request and the set of errors.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the determining the average time
to resolution of the given software performance problem for each of
the plurality of analysis tools comprises: aggregating the stored
identity of the given analysis tool with the time to resolution of
the service request and the set of errors across a plurality of
service requests; and determining an average time to resolution of
each of the plurality of analysis tools for each set of errors.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the ranking the plurality of
analysis tools using the average times to resolution of the given
software performance problems for the plurality of analysis tools
comprises: organizing the plurality of analysis tools into one or
more categories using the sets of errors aggregated across the
plurality of service requests; and ranking analysis tools within
each category using the average times to resolution of the analysis
tools within the category.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving a second
service request for a second software performance problem, wherein
the second service request includes one or more files; capturing a
second set of errors in the second service request files;
determining a given category of analysis tools using the second set
of errors; and recommending one or more analysis tools in the given
category based on the rankings of the analysis tools within the
given category.
6. A method for ranking analysis tools by a computing system
comprising a processor, comprising: measuring, by the processor, a
plurality of times to resolution of a plurality of service requests
for software performance problems after runnings of a plurality of
analysis tools are initiated; capturing, by the processor, sets of
errors in the plurality of service requests; storing, by the
processor, identities of the plurality of analysis tools with the
times to resolution of the service requests and the sets of errors;
determining, by the processor, an average time to resolution of
each of the plurality of analysis tools for each set of errors;
organizing, by the processor, the plurality of analysis tools into
one or more categories using the sets of errors; and ranking, by
the processor, the analysis tools within each category using the
average times to resolution of the analysis tools within the
category.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving a given
service request for a given software performance problem, wherein
the given service request includes one or more files; capturing a
given set of errors in the given service request files; determining
a given category of analysis tools using the given set of errors;
and recommending one or more analysis tools in the given category
based on the rankings of the analysis tools within the given
category.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] The present application is a continuation of co-pending U.S.
patent application Ser. No. 13/413,993, filed on Mar. 7, 2012.
BACKGROUND
[0002] Customers of software products often contact vendor support
personnel when software problems occur. For example, as part of the
support process, a customer may electronically submit a service
request to support personnel. The service request includes a
collection of files that contain the errors at issue. When a
support person begins working on a service request, she must choose
from a variety of different analysis tools to run on the service
request files. Selecting the most appropriate or efficient analysis
tool for a particular error or sets of errors can sometimes be
difficult. Support personnel often rely upon their own experience
or the recommendation of those with more technical expertise. Some
attempt to highlight certain analysis tools by ranking the analysis
tools by popularity or alphabetically. However, these approaches do
not necessarily highlight the most appropriate or efficient
analysis tools for the customer's specific problem.
SUMMARY
[0003] According to one embodiment of the present invention, in a
method for ranking analysis tools by a computing system, a
processor of the computing system measures a time to resolution of
a given software performance problem for each run of any of a
plurality of analysis tools. The processor determines an average
time to resolution of the given software performance problem for
each of the plurality of analysis tools and ranks the plurality of
analysis tools using the average times to resolution of the given
software performance problems for the plurality of analysis
tools.
[0004] In one aspect of the present invention, measuring the time
to resolution of the given software performance problem for each
run of any of the plurality of analysis tools comprises receiving a
service request for the software performance problem, wherein the
service request includes one or more files, and includes initiating
a running of a given analysis tool of the plurality of analysis
tools. A time to resolution of the service request is measured from
a predetermined time after the given analysis tool was initiated. A
set of errors in the files of the service request is captured and
an identity of the given analysis tool is stored along with the
time to resolution of the service request and the set of
errors.
[0005] In one aspect of the present invention, determining the
average time to resolution of the given software performance
problem for each of the plurality of analysis tools comprises
aggregating the stored identity of the given analysis tool with the
time to resolution of the service request and the set of errors
across a plurality of service requests and determining an average
time to resolution of each of the plurality of analysis tools for
each set of errors.
[0006] In one aspect of the present invention, the ranking the
plurality of analysis tools using the average times to resolution
of the given software performance problems for the plurality of
analysis tools comprises organizing the plurality of analysis tools
into one or more categories using the sets of errors aggregated
across the plurality of service requests. Analysis tools are ranked
within each category using the average times to resolution of the
analysis tools within the category.
[0007] In one aspect of the present invention, receiving a second
service request for a second software performance problem, wherein
the second request includes one or more files. A second set of
errors is captured in the one or more second service request files
and a given category of analysis tools is determined using the
second set of errors. One or more analysis tools in the given
category is recommended based on the rankings of the analysis tools
within the given category.
[0008] System and computer program products corresponding to the
above-summarized methods are also described and claimed herein.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a system for ranking
analysis tools according to the present invention.
[0010] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a method
for ranking analysis tools according to the present invention.
[0011] FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating in further detail the
embodiment of the method for ranking analysis tools according to
the present invention.
[0012] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a method
for recommending analysis tools according to the present
invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0013] As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of
the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or
computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present
invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an
entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident
software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and
hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a
"circuit," "module" or "system." Furthermore, aspects of the
present invention may take the form of a computer program product
embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer
readable program code embodied thereon.
[0014] Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s)
may be utilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer
readable signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A
computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not
limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic,
infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any
suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a
non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would
include the following: an electrical connection having one or more
wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access
memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable
read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a
portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage
device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of
the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable
storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or
store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction
execution system, apparatus, or device.
[0015] A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated
data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein,
for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a
propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including,
but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable
combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any
computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage
medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program
for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system,
apparatus, or device.
[0016] Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be
transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited
to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any
suitable combination of the foregoing.
[0017] Computer program code for carrying out operations for
aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination
of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented
programming language such as Java.RTM. (Java, and all Java-based
trademarks and logos are trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in
the United States, other countries, or both), Smalltalk, C++ or the
like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the
"C" programming language or similar programming languages. The
program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on
the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on
the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on
the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote
computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type
of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area
network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external
computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet
Service Provider).
[0018] Aspects of the present invention are described below with
reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of
methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products
according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood
that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block
diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations
and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program
instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided
to a processor of a general purpose computer special purpose
computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce
a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the
processor of the computer or other programmable data processing
apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts
specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or
blocks.
[0019] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a
computer readable medium that can direct a computer other
programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to
function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored
in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture
including instructions which implement the function/act specified
in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
[0020] The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a
computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other
devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on
the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to
produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions
which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus
provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in
the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
[0021] The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate
the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible
implementations of systems, methods and computer program products
according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this
regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent
a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more
executable instructions for implementing the specified local
function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative
implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of
the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in
succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or
the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order,
depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted
that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart
illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams
and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special
purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions
or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer
instructions.
[0022] The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing
particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of
the invention. As used herein, the singular forms "a", "an" and
"the" are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood
that the terms "comprises" and/or "comprising," when used in this
specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers,
steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude
the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers,
steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.
[0023] The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and
equivalents of all means or step plus function elements in the
claims below are intended to include any structure, material, or
act for performing the function in combination with other claimed
elements as specifically claimed. The description of the present
invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and
description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the
invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations
will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without
departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. The
embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the
principles of the invention and the practical application, and to
enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the
invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are
suited to the particular use contemplated.
[0024] FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a system for ranking
analysis tools according to the present invention. The computer
system 100 is operationally coupled to a processor or processing
units 106, a memory 101, and a bus 109 that couples various system
components, including the memory 101 to the processor 106. The bus
109 represents one or more of any of several types of bus
structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a
peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port, and a processor or
local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. The memory
101 may include computer readable media in the form of volatile
memory, such as random access memory (RAM) 102 or cache memory 103,
or non-volatile storage media 104. The memory 101 may include at
least one program product having a set of at least one program code
modules 105 that are configured to carry out the functions of
embodiments of the present invention when executed by the processor
106. The computer system 100 may also communicate with one or more
external devices 111, such as a display 24, via I/O interfaces 107.
The computer system 100 may communicate with one or more networks
via network adapter 108.
[0025] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a method
performed by a circuit, module or system for ranking analysis tools
according to the present invention. The method measures the time to
resolution of a given software performance problem for each run of
any of a plurality of analysis tool available to a support person
(201). Using this data, the method determines an average time to
resolution of the given performance problem for each of the
plurality of analysis tools (202). The method then ranks the
plurality of analysis tools using the average times to resolution
of the given software performance problem (203). Recommendations of
analysis tools may be made to support personnel for resolving the
given software performance problem based on the rankings. In this
manner, the embodiments of the present invention assist in the
selection of the most appropriate or efficient analysis tools for
resolving particular software problems.
[0026] FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating in further detail the
embodiment of the method for ranking analysis tools according to
the present invention. Customers submit service requests to support
personnel for assistance with a software performance problem. The
service request contains files, such as emails, system logs, etc.
Contained within the service request files are errors that may
identity the problems, i.e., serve as "fingerprints" or "symptoms"
of the problem. In response to receiving a service request
comprising the files from a customer (301), the circuit, module or
system receives a signal from the support person initiating the
running of an analysis tool of a plurality of analysis tools, and
the method measures the time to resolution of the service request
from a predetermined time after the analysis tool is initiated
(302). For example, when the analysis tool is initiated, the method
starts a timer for the service request. The timer will run until
the service request is resolved. Further, the method examines the
service request files and captures a set of errors in the service
request files (303). The method then stores the identity of the
analysis tool that was run along with the time to resolution and
the set of errors (304). Steps 301 through 304 are repeated each
time an analysis tool is run.
[0027] The method aggregates the data collected across multiple
service requests (305), and uses the aggregated data to determine
the average time to resolution of each analysis tool for each set
of errors (306). The method further uses the aggregated data to
organize the analysis tools into categories using the sets of
errors (307). For example, when a memory analyzer tool and a heap
analyzer tool are most often run on the service requests containing
files with Out of Memory exceptions and Null Pointer Exceptions,
then the method can place the memory analyzer and heap analyzer
tools into the category for Out of Memory and Null Pointer
Exceptions. The analysis tools within each category are then ranked
using their respective average times to resolutions (308). For
example, when the average time to resolution for the memory
analyzer tool is one hour and the average time to resolution for
the heap analyzer tool is two hours, the method can rank the memory
analyzer tool higher than the heap analyzer tool.
[0028] The rankings may then be used to provide recommendations of
which analysis tools for use with which sets of errors. FIG. 4 is a
flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a method for recommending
analysis tools according to the present invention. When a support
person receives a service request comprising files from a customer
(401), the method captures the set of errors found in the service
request files (402). The method then determines the category of
analysis tools using the set of errors (403). The method then can
recommend one or more analysis tools based on their rankings within
that category (404). For example, assume that the service request
files from the customer contain Out of Memory and Null Pointer
Exceptions. The method captures these errors for the service
request files and determines that they are relevant to the Out of
Memory and Null Pointer Exceptions category. The method can then
recommend the memory analyzer tool over the heap analyzer tool
since the memory analyzer tool is ranked higher than the heap
analyzer tool in this category.
[0029] Considerations other than or in addition to the average time
to resolution may be used to rank the analysis tools. For example,
the number of clicks that occur in a service request after an
analysis tool is run can be recorded. This information may indicate
the amount of interaction that an analysis tool may require after
it is initially invoked to resolve a service request. Other
possible considerations may include: time that the analysis tool is
displayed in foreground or the background, which may indicate the
amount of actual interaction with the analysis tool by the support
person; or the amount of email communications between the support
person and the customer after an analysis tool is initiated, which
may indicate the level of complexity of the problem. These
considerations may be used to increase the accuracy of the rankings
and thus the recommendations based on the rankings.
[0030] Further, embodiments of the method may recommend a chain of
analysis tools to use for a particular set of errors. When a first
recommended analysis tool does not resolve the service request, the
method may recommend the next higher ranking analysis tool, and so
forth. The embodiments of the method may further recommend
particular combinations of analysis tools to use for a particular
set of errors, where the combination is determined to lead to
faster time to resolution.
[0031] The descriptions of the various embodiments of the present
invention has been presented for purposes of illustration, but are
not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the embodiments
disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to
those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope
and spirit of the described embodiments. The terminology used
herein was chosen to best explain the principles of the
embodiments, the practical application or technical improvement
over technologies found in the marketplace, or to enable others of
ordinary skill in the art to understand the embodiments disclosed
herein.
* * * * *