An Evolutionary Study of Configuration Design and Implementation in Cloud Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Many techniques were proposed for detecting software misconfigurations in cloud systems and for diagnosing unintended behavior caused by such misconfigurations. Detection and diagnosis are steps in the right direction: misconfigurations cause many costly failures and severe performance issues. But, we argue that continued focus on detection and diagnosis is symptomatic of a more serious problem: configuration design and implementation are not yet first-class software engineering endeavors in cloud systems. Little is known about how and why developers evolve configuration design and implementation, and the challenges that they face in doing so. This paper presents a source-code level study of the evolution of configuration design and implementation in cloud systems. Our goal is to understand the rationale and developer practices for revising initial configuration design/implementation decisions, especially in response to consequences of misconfigurations. To this end, we studied 1178 configuration-related commits from a 2.5 year version-control history of four large-scale, actively-maintained open-source cloud systems (HDFS, HBase, Spark, and Cassandra). We derive new insights into the software configuration engineering process. Our results motivate new techniques for proactively reducing misconfigurations by improving the configuration design and implementation process in cloud systems. We highlight a number of future research directions.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 14 Feb 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2022Unicorn: Reasoning about Configurable System Performance through the lens of Causalitycited by 12
- 2023Configuration Validation with Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2026Revealing Domain-Spatiality Patterns for Configuration Tuning: Domain Knowledge Meets Fitness Landscapescited by 4
- 2026When to Use Which? Benchmarking Optimisers for Configurable Systems under Varying Budgetscited by 1
- 2021Towards automation of threat modeling based on a semantic model of attack patterns and weaknessescited by 0
- 2023Can LLMs Configure Software Toolscited by 0
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspectivecited by 0
- 2026When to Use Which? Benchmarking Optimisers for Configurable Systems under Varying Budgets17 Jul 2026
- 2026Revealing Domain-Spatiality Patterns for Configuration Tuning: Domain Knowledge Meets Fitness Landscapes20 Mar 2026
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspective26 Sep 2025
- 2023Can LLMs Configure Software Tools11 Dec 2023
- 2023Configuration Validation with Large Language Models15 Oct 2023
- 2022Unicorn: Reasoning about Configurable System Performance through the lens of Causality20 Jan 2022
- 2021Towards automation of threat modeling based on a semantic model of attack patterns and weaknesses8 Dec 2021