skip to main content
research-article

Improving Scalability and Reward of Utility-Driven Self-Healing for Large Dynamic Architectures

Published:25 February 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Self-adaptation can be realized in various ways. Rule-based approaches prescribe the adaptation to be executed if the system or environment satisfies certain conditions. They result in scalable solutions but often with merely satisfying adaptation decisions. In contrast, utility-driven approaches determine optimal decisions by using an often costly optimization, which typically does not scale for large problems. We propose a rule-based and utility-driven adaptation scheme that achieves the benefits of both directions such that the adaptation decisions are optimal, whereas the computation scales by avoiding an expensive optimization. We use this adaptation scheme for architecture-based self-healing of large software systems. For this purpose, we define the utility for large dynamic architectures of such systems based on patterns that define issues the self-healing must address. Moreover, we use pattern-based adaptation rules to resolve these issues. Using a pattern-based scheme to define the utility and adaptation rules allows us to compute the impact of each rule application on the overall utility and to realize an incremental and efficient utility-driven self-healing. In addition to formally analyzing the computational effort and optimality of the proposed scheme, we thoroughly demonstrate its scalability and optimality in terms of reward in comparative experiments with a static rule-based approach as a baseline and a utility-driven approach using a constraint solver. These experiments are based on different failure profiles derived from real-world failure logs. We also investigate the impact of different failure profile characteristics on the scalability and reward to evaluate the robustness of the different approaches.

References

  1. Ivan Dario Paez Anaya, Viliam Simko, Johann Bourcier, Noel Plouzeau, and Jean-Marc Jézéquel. 2014. A prediction-driven adaptation approach for self-adaptive sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’14). ACM, New York, NY, 145--154. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2593929.25941.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Konstantinos Angelopoulos, Vitor E. Silva Souza, and John Mylopoulos. 2014. Dealing with multiple failures in zanshin: A control-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’14). ACM, New York, NY, 165--174. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2593929.2593936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Gordon Blair, Nelly Bencomo, and Robert B. France. 2009. [email protected]. Computer 42, 10 (2009), 22--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.326Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Javier Cámara and Rogerio de Lemos. 2012. Evaluation of resilience in self-adaptive systems using probabilistic model-checking. In Proceedings of the 2012 7th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’12). 53--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Javier Cámara, David Garlan, Bradley Schmerl, and Ashutosh Pandey. 2015. Optimal planning for architecture-based self-adaptation via model checking of stochastic games. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’15). ACM, New York, NY, 428--435. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2695664.2695680Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Javier Cámara, Antónia Lopes, David Garlan, and Bradley Schmerl. 2016. Adaptation impact and environment models for architecture-based self-adaptive systems. Science of Computer Programming 127, C (Oct. 2016), 50--75. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2015.12.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Javier Cámara, Bradley Schmerl, Gabriel A. Moreno, and David Garlan. 2018. MOSAICO: Offline synthesis of adaptation strategy repertoires with flexible trade-offs. Automated Software Engineering 25, 3 (May 2018), 595--626. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-018-0234-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Antonio Carzaniga, Alessandra Gorla, and Pezze. 2008. Self-healing by means of automatic workarounds. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-managing Systems (SEAMS’08). ACM, New York, NY, 17--24. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370018.1370023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Paulo Casanova, David Garlan, Bradley Schmerl, and Rui Abreu. 2013. Diagnosing architectural run-time failures. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’13). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 103--112. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2487336.2487354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. X. Castillo, S. R. McConnel, and D. P. Siewiorek. 1982. Derivation and calibration of a transient error reliability model. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-31, 7 (July 1982), 658--671.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. S. M. Chan and Judith Bishop. 2009. The design of a self-healing composition cycle for web services. In Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. 20--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shang-Wen Cheng. 2008. Rainbow: Cost-Effective Software Architecture-Based Self-Adaptation. Ph.D. Dissertation. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Shang-Wen Cheng and David Garlan. 2012. Stitch: A language for architecture-based self-adaptation. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 12 (Dec. 2012), 2860--2875.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Shang-Wen Cheng, David Garlan, and Bradley Schmerl. 2006. Architecture-based self-adaptation in the presence of multiple objectives. In Proceedings of the ICSE 2006 Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’06).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Anthony C. Davison and Diego Kuonen. Summer 2002. An introduction to the bootstrap with applications in R. Statistical Computing and Statistical Graphics Newsletter 13, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Antinisca Di Marco, Paola Inverardi, and Romina Spalazzese. 2013. Synthesizing self-adaptive connectors meeting functional and performance concerns. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’13). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 133--142. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2487336.2487358.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman 8 Hall, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jens Ehlers, Andre van Hoorn, Jan Waller, and Wilhelm Hasselbring. 2011. Self-adaptive software system monitoring for performance anomaly localization. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’11). ACM, New York, NY, 197--200. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1998582.1998628.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Naeem Esfahani, Ahmed Elkhodary, and Sam Malek. 2013. A learning-based framework for engineering feature-oriented self-adaptive software systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 11 (2013), 1467--1493. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2013.37Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Fischer, Jörg Niere, L. Torunski, and Albert Zündorf. 1998. Story diagrams: A new graph rewrite language based on the unified modeling language. In Theory and Application of Graph Transformation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1764. Springer, 296--309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Franck Fleurey, Vegard Dehlen, Nelly Bencomo, Brice Morin, and Jean-Marc Jézéquel. 2009. Modeling and validating dynamic adaptation. In Models in Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5421. Springer, 97--108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Franck Fleurey and Arnor Solberg. 2009. A domain specific modeling language supporting specification, simulation and execution of dynamic adaptive systems. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5795. Springer, 606--621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacqueline Floch, Svein Hallsteinsen, Erlend Stav, Frank Eliassen, Ketil Lund, and Eli Gjorven. 2006. Using architecture models for runtime adaptability. IEEE Software 23, 2 (2006), 62--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Robert France and Bernhard Rumpe. 2007. Model-driven development of complex software: A research roadmap. In Proceedings of Future of Software Engineering(FOSE’07). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 37--54. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOSE.2007.14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Joao M. Franco, Francisco Correia, Raul Barbosa, Mario Zenha-Rela, Bradley Schmerl, and David Garlan. 2016. Improving self-adaptation planning through software architecture-based stochastic modeling. Journal of Systems and Software 115 (May 2016), 42--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Matthieu Gallet, Nezih Yigitbasi, Bahman Javadi, Derrick Kondo, Alexandru Iosup, and Dick Epema. 2010. A Model for Space-Correlated Failures in Large-Scale Distributed Systems. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 88--100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15277-1_10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. David Garlan and Bradley Schmerl. 2002. Model-based adaptation for self-healing systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Self-Healing Systems (WOSS’02). ACM, New York, NY, 27--32. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/582128.582134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. David Garlan, Bradley Schmerl, and Shang-Wen Cheng. 2009. Software architecture-based self-adaptation. In Autonomic Computing and Networking. Springer, 31--55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89828-5_2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Simos Gerasimou, Radu Calinescu, and Alec Banks. 2014. Efficient runtime quantitative verification using caching, lookahead, and nearly-optimal reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’14). ACM, New York, NY, 115--124. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2593929.2593932Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sona Ghahremani, Christian M. Adriano, and Holger Giese. 2018. Training prediction models for rule-based self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Sona Ghahremani and Holger Giese. 2019. Performance evaluation for self-healing systems: Current practice and open issues. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 4th International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W’19). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 116--119. https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2019.00039.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Sona Ghahremani, Holger Giese, and Thomas Vogel. 2016. Towards linking adaptation rules to the utility function for dynamic architectures. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO’16). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 142--143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SASO.2016.21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sona Ghahremani, Holger Giese, and Thomas Vogel. 2017. Efficient utility-driven self-healing employing adaptation rules for large dynamic architectures. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAC.2017.35Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Carlo Ghezzi. 2012. Evolution, adaptation, and the quest for incrementality. In Large-Scale Complex IT Systems. Development, Operation and Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7539. Springer, 369--379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34059-8_19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Rean Griffith, Gail Kaiser, and Javier Alonso Lopez. 2009. Multi-perspective evaluation of self-healing systems using simple probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’09). ACM, New York, NY, 59--60. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1555228.1555245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. R. Haesevoets, Danny Weyns, T. Holvoet, and Wouter Joosen. 2009. A formal model for self-adaptive and self-healing organizations. In Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. 116--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Sara Hassan, Nelly Bencomo, and Rami Bahsoon. 2015. Minimizing nasty surprises with better informed decision-making in self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 134--144. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2821357.2821383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Tomasz Haupt. 2012. Towards mediation-based self-healing of data-driven business processes. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’12). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 139--144. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2666795.2666817.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Taliver Heath, Richard P. Martin, and Thu D. Nguyen. 2002. Improving cluster availability using workstation validation. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 30, 1 (June 2002), 217--227. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/511399.511362Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. IBM. 2018. IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio. Retrieved February 4, 2020 from http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibmilogcpleoptistud.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Alexandru Iosup, Catalin Dumitrescu, Dick Epema, Hui Li, and Lex Wolters. 2006. How are real grids used? The analysis of four grid traces and its implications. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing (GRID’06). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 262--269. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGRID.2006.311024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Alexandru Iosup, Mathieu Jan, Ozan Sonmez, and Dick Epema. 2007. On the Dynamic Resources Availability in Grids. Research Report. INRIA. https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00143265 This paper has been submitted to the Grid’2007 conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Dennis Ippoliti and Xiaobo Zhou. 2012. A self-tuning self-optimizing approach for automated network anomaly detection systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’12). ACM, New York, NY, 85--90. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2371536.2371551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Ravishankar K. Iyer, S. E. Butner, and E. J. McCluskey. 1982. A statistical failure/load relationship: Results of a multicomputer study. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-31, 7 (July 1982), 697--706.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Jeffrey O. Kephart and David Chess. 2003. The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36, 1 (2003), 41--50. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=642200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jeffrey O. Kephart and Rajarshi Das. 2007. Achieving self-management via utility functions. IEEE Internet Computing 11, 1 (2007), 40--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Jeffrey O. Kephart and William E. Walsh. 2004. An artificial intelligence perspective on autonomic computing policies. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY’04). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 3--12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/POLICY.2004.1309145Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Dongsun Kim and Sooyong Park. 2009. Reinforcement learning-based dynamic adaptation planning method for architecture-based self-managed software. In Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’09). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 76--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Derrick Kondo, Gilles Fedak, Franck Cappello, Andrew A. Chien, and Henri Casanova. 2007. Characterizing resource availability in enterprise desktop grids. Future Generation Computer Systems 23, 7 (2007), 888--903.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Derrick Kondo, Bahman Javadi, Alexandru Iosup, and Dick Epema. 2010. The failure trace archive: Enabling comparative analysis of failures in diverse distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing (CCGRID’10). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 398--407. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CCGRID.2010.71Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Joao Paulo Magalhaes and Luis Moura Silva. 2015. SHoWA: A self-healing framework for web-based applications. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 10, 1 (March 2015), Article 4, 28 pages. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2700325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Jeff Magee and Jeff Kramer. 1996. Dynamic structure in software architectures. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 3--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/239098.239104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Gabriel A. Moreno, Javier Cámara, David Garlan, and Bradley Schmerl. 2016. Efficient decision-making under uncertainty for proactive self-adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’16). 147--156. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAC.2016.59Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Gabriel A. Moreno, Ofer Strichman, Sagar Chaki, and Radislav Vaisman. 2017. Decision-making with cross-entropy for self-adaptation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 90--101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAMS.2017.7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Sangeeta Neti and Hausi A. Mueller. 2007. Quality criteria and an analysis framework for self-healing systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’07). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SEAMS.2007.15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Peyman Oreizy, Michael M. Gorlick, Richard Taylor, Dennis Heimbigner, Gregory Johnson, Nenad Medvidovic, Alex Quilici, David S. Rosenblum, and Alexander L. Wolf. 1999. An architecture-based approach to self-adaptive software. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14, 3 (1999), 54--62. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/5254.769885.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. A. Pandey, G. A. Moreno, J. Cámara, and D. Garlan. 2016. Hybrid planning for decision making in self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO’16). 130--139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SASO.2016.19Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Tharindu Patikirikorala, Alan Colman, Jun Han, and Liuping Wang. 2012. A systematic survey on the design of self-adaptive software systems using control engineering approaches. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’12). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 33--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Nicolo Perino. 2013. A framework for self-healing software systems. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’13). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1397--1400. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486788.2487016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Eric Piel, Alberto Gonzalez-Sanchez, Hans-Gerhard Gross, and Arjan J. C. van Gemund. 2011. Spectrum-based health monitoring for self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 5th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. V. Poladian, Joao P. Sousa, David Garlan, and Mary Shaw. 2004. Dynamic configuration of resource-aware services. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’04). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 604--613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Yang Qun, Yang Xian-Chun, and Xu Man-Wu. 2005. A framework for dynamic software architecture-based self-healing. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 3. 2968--2972.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Romain Rouvoy, Paolo Barone, Yun Ding, Frank Eliassen, Svein Hallsteinsen, Jorge Lorenzo, Alessandro Mamelli, and Ulrich Scholz. 2009. MUSIC: Middleware support for self-adaptation in ubiquitous and service-oriented environments. In Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5525. Springer, 164--182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02161-9_9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Mazeiar Salehie and Ladan Tahvildari. 2006. A coordination mechanism for self-healing and self-optimizing disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Self-Adaptation and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’06). ACM, New York, NY, 98. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137677.1137701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Julia Schmitt, Michael Roth, Rolf Kiefhaber, Florian Kluge, and Theo Ungerer. 2011. Realizing self-x properties by an automated planner. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’11). ACM, New York, NY, 185--186. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1998582.1998620.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Dale E. Seborg, Duncan A. Mellichamp, Thomas F. Edgar, and Francis J. Doyle. 2011. Process Dynamics and Control (3rd ed.). John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Peter Sestoft. 2013. Microbenchmarks in Java and C#. Retrieved February 4, 2020 from https://www.itu.dk/people/sestoft/papers/benchmarking.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Daniel Sykes, William Heaven, Jeff Magee, and Jeff Kramer. 2007. Plan-directed architectural change for autonomous systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems: 6th Joint Meeting of the European Conference on Software Engineering and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (SAVCBS’07). ACM, New York, NY, 15--21. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1292316.1292318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. D. Tang and Ravishankar K. Iyer. 1993. Dependability measurement and modeling of a multicomputer system. IEEE Transactions on Computers 42, 1 (1993), 62--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Matthias Tichy and Holger Giese. 2004. A self-optimizing run-time architecture for configurable dependability of services. In Architecting Dependable Systems II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3069. Springer, 25--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomas Vogel. 2018. mRUBiS: An exemplar for model-based architectural self-healing and self-optimization. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’18). ACM, New York, NY. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3194133.3194161Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Thomas Vogel and Holger Giese. 2010. Adaptation and abstract runtime models. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’10). ACM, New York, NY, 39--48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1808984.1808989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Thomas Vogel, Stefan Neumann, Stephan Hildebrandt, Holger Giese, and Basil Becker. 2009. Model-driven architectural monitoring and adaptation for autonomic systems. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’09). ACM, New York, NY, 67--68. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1555228.1555249Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Thomas Vogel, Stefan Neumann, Stephan Hildebrandt, Holger Giese, and Basil Becker. 2010. Incremental model synchronization for efficient run-time monitoring. In Models in Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6002. Springer, 124--139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12261-3_13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Danny Weyns, M. Usman Iftikhar, Sam Malek, and Jesper Andersson. 2012. Claims and supporting evidence for self-adaptive systems: A literature study. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’12). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 89--98. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2666795.2666811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Yanyong Zhang, Mark S. Squillante, Anand Sivasubramaniam, and Ramendra K. Sahoo. 2005. Performance Implications of Failures in Large-Scale Cluster Scheduling. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 233--252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/11407522_13Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Improving Scalability and Reward of Utility-Driven Self-Healing for Large Dynamic Architectures

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!