Search for: All records

It is common for performance studies of computer systems to make the assumption—either explicitly or implicitly—that results from each trial are independent. One place this assumption manifests is in experiment design, specifically in the order in which trials are run: if trials do not affect each other, the order in which they are run is unimportant. If, however, the execution of one trial does affect system state in ways that alter the results of future trials, this assumption does not hold, and ordering must be taken into account in experiment design. In the simplest example, if all trials with system setting A are run before all trials with setting B, this can systematically bias experiment results leading to the incorrect conclusion that “A is better than B” or vice versa. In this paper, we: (a) explore, via a literature and artifact survey, whether experiment ordering is taken in to consideration at top computer systems conferences; (b) devise a methodology for studying the effects of ordering on performance experiments, including statistical tests for order dependence; and (c) conduct the largest-scale empirical study to date on experiment ordering, using a dataset we collected over 9 months comprising nearly 2.3M measurements from over 1,700 servers. Our analysis shows that ordering effects are a hidden but dangerous trap that published performance experiments are not typically designed to avoid. We describe OrderSage, a tool that we have built to help detect and mitigate these effects, and use it on a number of case studies, including finding previously unknown ordering effects in an artifact from a published paper.