Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture

M. Stamatogiannakis, H. Kazmi, H. Sharif, R. Vermeulen, A. Gehani, H.J. Bos, P.T. Groth

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Automatic provenance capture from arbitrary applications is a challenging problem. Different approaches to tackle this problem have evolved, most notably a. system-event trace analysis, b. compile-time static instrumentation, and c. taint flow analysis using dynamic binary instrumentation. Each of these approaches offers different trade-offs in terms of the granularity of captured provenance, integration requirements, and runtime overhead. While these aspects have been discussed separately, a systematic and detailed study, quantifying and elucidating them, is still lacking. To fill this gap, we begin to explore these trade-offs for representative examples of these approaches for automatic provenance capture by means of evaluation and measurement. We base our evaluation on UnixBench—a widely used benchmark suite within systems research. We believe this approach will make our results easier to compare with future studies.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProvenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings
PublisherSpringer
Pages29-41
ISBN (Electronic)978-3-319-40592-6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science
PublisherSpringer
Volume9672

Fingerprint

Trace analysis
Dynamic analysis

Cite this

Stamatogiannakis, M., Kazmi, H., Sharif, H., Vermeulen, R., Gehani, A., Bos, H. J., & Groth, P. T. (2016). Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture. In Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings (pp. 29-41). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 9672). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40593-3_3
Stamatogiannakis, M. ; Kazmi, H. ; Sharif, H. ; Vermeulen, R. ; Gehani, A. ; Bos, H.J. ; Groth, P.T. / Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture. Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings. Springer, 2016. pp. 29-41 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
@inproceedings{b7a712f2e8cd49ef94a12b1012d2f064,
title = "Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture",
abstract = "Automatic provenance capture from arbitrary applications is a challenging problem. Different approaches to tackle this problem have evolved, most notably a. system-event trace analysis, b. compile-time static instrumentation, and c. taint flow analysis using dynamic binary instrumentation. Each of these approaches offers different trade-offs in terms of the granularity of captured provenance, integration requirements, and runtime overhead. While these aspects have been discussed separately, a systematic and detailed study, quantifying and elucidating them, is still lacking. To fill this gap, we begin to explore these trade-offs for representative examples of these approaches for automatic provenance capture by means of evaluation and measurement. We base our evaluation on UnixBench—a widely used benchmark suite within systems research. We believe this approach will make our results easier to compare with future studies.",
author = "M. Stamatogiannakis and H. Kazmi and H. Sharif and R. Vermeulen and A. Gehani and H.J. Bos and P.T. Groth",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-40593-3_3",
language = "English",
series = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "29--41",
booktitle = "Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings",

}

Stamatogiannakis, M, Kazmi, H, Sharif, H, Vermeulen, R, Gehani, A, Bos, HJ & Groth, PT 2016, Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture. in Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9672, Springer, pp. 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40593-3_3

Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture. / Stamatogiannakis, M.; Kazmi, H.; Sharif, H.; Vermeulen, R.; Gehani, A.; Bos, H.J.; Groth, P.T.

Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings. Springer, 2016. p. 29-41 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 9672).

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture

AU - Stamatogiannakis, M.

AU - Kazmi, H.

AU - Sharif, H.

AU - Vermeulen, R.

AU - Gehani, A.

AU - Bos, H.J.

AU - Groth, P.T.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Automatic provenance capture from arbitrary applications is a challenging problem. Different approaches to tackle this problem have evolved, most notably a. system-event trace analysis, b. compile-time static instrumentation, and c. taint flow analysis using dynamic binary instrumentation. Each of these approaches offers different trade-offs in terms of the granularity of captured provenance, integration requirements, and runtime overhead. While these aspects have been discussed separately, a systematic and detailed study, quantifying and elucidating them, is still lacking. To fill this gap, we begin to explore these trade-offs for representative examples of these approaches for automatic provenance capture by means of evaluation and measurement. We base our evaluation on UnixBench—a widely used benchmark suite within systems research. We believe this approach will make our results easier to compare with future studies.

AB - Automatic provenance capture from arbitrary applications is a challenging problem. Different approaches to tackle this problem have evolved, most notably a. system-event trace analysis, b. compile-time static instrumentation, and c. taint flow analysis using dynamic binary instrumentation. Each of these approaches offers different trade-offs in terms of the granularity of captured provenance, integration requirements, and runtime overhead. While these aspects have been discussed separately, a systematic and detailed study, quantifying and elucidating them, is still lacking. To fill this gap, we begin to explore these trade-offs for representative examples of these approaches for automatic provenance capture by means of evaluation and measurement. We base our evaluation on UnixBench—a widely used benchmark suite within systems research. We believe this approach will make our results easier to compare with future studies.

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-40593-3_3

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-40593-3_3

M3 - Conference contribution

T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science

SP - 29

EP - 41

BT - Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings

PB - Springer

ER -

Stamatogiannakis M, Kazmi H, Sharif H, Vermeulen R, Gehani A, Bos HJ et al. Trade-offs in Automatic Provenance Capture. In Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes - 6th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2016, McLean, VA, USA, June 7-8, 2016, Proceedings. Springer. 2016. p. 29-41. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40593-3_3