Quantitative Metrics

• Author: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU body or agency)
• Pages: 21-24

eu-LISA PUBLIC

EURODAC MSI/OPTICAL SCAN TSSR  21

eu-LISA PUBLIC

4 Quantitative Metrics

The purpose of this study is NOT to validate compliance of Na tional NAP/FIT stations by counting the number

of passed/failed tests. Its purpose it to check if the usage of MSI devices for taking fingerprints that are stored /

searched in the Eurodac system does not compromise the results obtained by the system (compared to the

current status and fingerprint taking methods used). Th erefore, the following Quantitati ve Metrics have been

defined to evaluate the MSI technology:

4.1 Acceptance/Rejection Response Time by Central Unit

Defined in EURODAC MSI/Optical Scan Test Strategy 2.2 [MOSTS]  page 12, s ection 3. Quantitative Metrics.

Result

Average

MS

Total

Optical

trans.

MSI trans.

Target

Difference

(Total to

Target)

Acceptance Response

Time by Central Unit

Average

00:01:21.6

00:02:19.7

00:00:23.3

1 min

+00:00:21.6

(+35.92%)

SE

00:02:06.2

00:03:54.5

00:00:18.4

+00:01:06.2

(+110.31%)

NO

00:00:36.8

00:00:45.3

00:00:28.2

-00:00:23.2

(-38.73%)

Rejection Response

Time by Central Unit

Average

00:02:09.1

00:05:55.5

00:00:04.6

1 min

+00:01:09.1

(+115.16%)

SE

00:03:09.8

00:09:18.6

00:00:05.4

+00:02:09.8

(+216.27%)

NO

00:00:01.7

00:00:00.0

00:00:02.8

-00:00:58.3

(-2.83%)

The values are listed in hh:mm:ss.ms format, where hh = hours, mm=minutes , ss=seconds, ms = milliseconds.

Depending on the quality of the scanned fingerprint images, the size of the NIST files encapsulated into

transactions, as long as the load of the Central System processing other transactions, the response times be

vary.

As listed, the response times are higher for the tests executed by Sweden. This is explained by the method used

to execute the tests: send all 500 transactions of each RUN at one (without any delay between) .

The first observed effect was the increased delay in CS provided replays (exceeding the target limit in case of

Optical transactions, where MSI transactions scored with an average of 41 sec onds lower than the target).

The second observed effect is that, even the Central System managed t o cope with the high load, the National

System crashed several time due to the heavy reply load. However, his is not in the scope of the current project.

In case of Norway, the chosen method was to send the 500 transactions of each RUNs in smaller batches (up to

20 transactions) with a small delay between each batch. Under these conditions, the Central System provided

all the replies very low under the Target threshold. Still, the MSI transactions scored the lowest time scores