1 / 27

QoS management prototype in WS-DIAMOND

QoS management prototype in WS-DIAMOND. LAAS-CNRS Paris meeting 11-12 October 2007. Outline. The constituting modules: Summary Details: Monitoring Measurement Diagnosis & Planning Repair Relaxing assumption for: Summary Details: Local vs global properties QoS Manager deployment.

diep
Download Presentation

QoS management prototype in WS-DIAMOND

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. QoS management prototype in WS-DIAMOND LAAS-CNRS Paris meeting 11-12 October 2007

  2. Outline • The constituting modules: • Summary • Details: • Monitoring • Measurement • Diagnosis & Planning • Repair • Relaxing assumption for: • Summary • Details: • Local vs global properties • QoS Manager deployment • Provided functions • Internal architecture • Associated approach

  3. Summary (1/2):characteristics • QoS degradations are the handled faults. • Their detection is based on statiscal analysis of logged QoS parameters. • Two models are used: chronicles, and Markovian models. • Monitoring & repair based on : • Intercepting communication messages between providers and requesters, • Meta-level communication extending message headers by metadata describing QoS information. • Repair by reconfiguration • Is based on class-level substitution and duplication, • Acts by re-routing requests to different services

  4. Summary (2/2): Two possible levels for implementation • Level1: Management at the SOAP level • High level programming based on • Container-provided handlers for interception and standard XML parsing libraries • Reflexive programming libraries for Java • Reduced access to information: SOAP envelope • No information about IP address (requester,provider) • Needs manageable WS • Appropriate for stateless WS but needs more assumption and cooperation to manage statefull WS, asynchronous interaction and global repair • Level2: Management at the HTTP level • Augmented access to routing-information: • May handle sessions, may handle asynchronous interactions, useful for stateful services • Low level programming, Socket-based • HHTP proxies, handling of HTML messages(including SOAP part)

  5. Monitoring (1/1):The implemented module • Provided functions: Computes and stores the observed QoS parameter values. • Internal architecture and implementation: Two interceptors and a log database: • Requester Side Interceptor: • Implemented as a handler of the web service requester • Computes QoS values involved in the diagnosis process from the requester side. • Stores these values in database. • Provider Side Interceptor: • Implemented as a handler of the web service container • Computes QoS values involved in the diagnosis process from the provider side • Stores these values in the log database. • The log database: • Implementation technologies: • Axis Handlers for the interceptors • MySQL5 for the log database.

  6. Measurement (1/5): The approach • Main goal of measurement: detection of QoS degradation • Approach based on identification of temporal chronicles as QoS degradation symptoms • Some experimented temporal chronicles: • Example 1: N “consecutive” Texec greater than the average time : • Texeci>(AVGTexec+delay) • Example 2: N “consecutive” accelerations of Texeci: (without deceleration between Texeci) • TexecN>TexecN-1> … >Texec2>Texec1 • Example 3: Texec increases abruptly: • Texec2 >> Texec1

  7. Measurement (2/5): Chronicles examples (1/3) Pre-computed average (AVG should be deduced from large scale experiments, AGV=Constant) Texec Chronicle1 not triggered with N=3 Chronicle1 is triggered with N=3: t1,t2,t3>AVG+delay t3 t2 t1 AVG+delay delay AVG - Legend Time Acceptable values Monitored Texec

  8. Measurement (3/5): Chronicles examples (2/3) On the fly-computed average (AVG should be deduced from current QoS parameter values) Texec Chronicle1 is triggered with N=3: t1,t2,t3>AVG+delay Chronicle1 not triggered with N=3 t1 t3 t2 delay AVG+delay AVG - Legend Time Acceptable values Monitored Texec Real time computed AVG value Real time computed AVG+delay value

  9. Measurement (4/5): Chronicles examples (3/3) • Chronicle associated with example 1: • Messages: • message TexecViolation • message TexecOK • Triggering time condition: • TexecViolation: Texec>(AVGTexec+delay) • TexecOK: Texec<=(AVGTexec+delay) • Events: • Event(TexecViolation, t0) • Event(TexecViolation, t1) • Event(TexecViolation, t2) • No Event of type TexecOK between t0 and t2 • NoEvent(TexecOK,(t0,t2)) • Temporal constraints between instants : • t0<t1<t2

  10. Measurement (5/5):The implemented module • Provided functions: • Extracts data logged by the monitoring module in the Log database • Detects misbehaviors (QoS degradation) • Approach based on statistical functions and elementary temporal chronicles detection • Sends alarms to the diagnosis and repair planning module. • Internal architecture and implementation: a single web service

  11. Diagnosis & planning (1/2): The approaches • Focuses on a local diagnosis related to a single service • Main goal: Identify QoS degradation source • Discriminating faults of the communication and processing levels • Approach based on reasoning about execution and response times • Degradation(response time) & not Degradation (execution time) ==> communication level problem • Degradation(response time) & Degradation (execution time) ==> processing level problem • Considered plans: • Communication problem: service substitution • Processing problem: service duplication

  12. Diagnosis & planning (2/2): The implemented module • Provided functions: • A diagnosis by reasoning about the alarms received from the measurement module • Generates the repair plan to be performed by the reconfiguration execution module • Internal architecture and implementation: a single web service

  13. Repair(1/2):The approach • Main goal: eliminate source of detected QoS degradation • Approach based on architectural reconfiguration targeting class-level repair • Considered elementary reconfiguration actions: • Service substitution • Service duplication

  14. Repair(2/2): The implemented module • Provided functions: • Performs architectural reconfiguration using dynamically bound connectors between requesters and providers • Service substitution based on 1 to 1 equivalence specified in a predefined list • Internal architecture and implementation: • Two web services: • One for the automated dynamic code generation of the new connector • The second redeploys the new connector • Implementation technologies: • Java Reflection, Java Runtime Compilation, WSDL Runtime Compilation, XML Parsing

  15. Validation & experiments • First validation : • Prototype acting on a simple web service implementing arithmetic functions. • Delays are added in the web service itself to trigger QoS degradation • Current validation: FoodShop • Windows Version provided by POLIMI • The FoodShop simulator has been ported on Linux and deployed successfully on Grid5000 with provider-side interceptors and connectors • Current possible invocations through the SOAP User Interface • A non-interactive Java client is required to deal with QoS monitoring and measurement at the requester-side • Next: Fault Injector of POLIMI may be used at the SOAP level for triggering QoS degradation • Experiments: • Will be conducted on the Grid5000 for hundreds of requests to extract significant chronicles for the FoodShop example under critical utilization conditions. • We will rely on first developments and experiments with another toy example of collaborative activities.

  16. Relaxing assumptions on local and global properties of monitoring, measurement, diagnosis & planning and repair WS-Diamond review LAAS-CNRS September 2007

  17. Summary for Relaxing assumption for QoS • All kind of services • Black box assumptions: • WSDL is known • Global knowledge on the interdependencies between services • Messages are intercepted, extended, rerouted • Deployment assumptions • Complex services • Class-level, Global diagnosis & repair with formal models (chronicles, Markov) • Experiments: • Foodhop application • HTTP&SOAP level handling • Implementing integration with process-level functional self-healing modules • Only non orchestrated services • Black box assumptions: • Only WSDL is known • Messages are intercepted, extended, rerouted • Deployment assumptions • Simple services: N requester, 1 provider • Class-level, Local diagnosis & repair with simple model • Experiments: • Scalability on Grid5000 • Simple application • SOAP level handling • Study of integration with process-level functional self-healing modules

  18. Architecture (1/4): • Monitoring • Distributed & Local • Storage: 1DB/Provider & all its Requesters • Next: • Distributed & global Asynchronous (one-way) T2 T1 BD1 BD QoS Manager1 WS1 WS2 WS1 Req1 I I QoS Manager2 QoS Manager1 QoS Manager2 T2’ T1’ I Req2 WS2 I I BD2 Global Monitoring Local Monitoring

  19. Architecture (2/4): • Measurement • Distributed & Local • Next: • Distributed & global Asynchronous (one-way) BD1 Measurement Measurement1 T2 T1 WS1 Req1 I I BD QoS Manager1 WS1 WS2 QoS Manager2 I Measurement2 Req2 WS2 I T2’ T1’ I BD2 Global Measurement Local Measurement • Global Measurement: • We consider QoS parameters involving several requests/responses in the same work flow: • Response time= T2’-T1, Execution time= T1’-T2, etc… • Local Measurement: • We consider only QoS parameters related to single request/response

  20. Architecture (3/4): • Diagnosis & Repair Planning • Distributed • Local • Next: • Distributed global • Why Global Diagnosis? • Example : interlocked web services WS2 WS1 Req1 Tresp2 Tresp1 WS1 WS2 Req1 Sequence diagram Tresp1 Tresp2 • (Tresp1>>Tresp1Avg) && (Tresp2 >> Tresp2Avg) ==> Error detection • If Diag_Local(WS1)==> WS1 QoS degradation • Substitute (WS1,WS1’) [WS1’equivalent to WS1] • If Diag_Global(WS1,WS2)==> WS2 QoS degradation • Local Repair: Substitute(WS1,WS1”) [Where: WS1” Not_Connected_to WS2] • Global Repair: Substitute(WS2,WS2’) [Where: WS2’equivalent to WS2]

  21. Architecture (4/4): • Repair Enforcement • Distributed • Local (1 ReconfMgr/provider and all its requesters) • Next: • Global : Enable coordination between reconfiguration actions in order to avoid looping and to cooperate simultaneous reconfiguration process. • Replace (ws1 U ws2) by (ws3 u ws4) where • (ws1 U ws2) == (ws3 U ws4) • ws1 != ws3 and ws2 != ws4 Fgh Fg WS3 WS1 Req1 Req1 hi WS4 WS2 i

  22. Shop BPEL Local Shop WS Local Sup1 WS Local Sup2 WS Sup1 Sup2 WH BPEL BPEL BPEL Local WH WS Possible applications of QoS management to the FoodShop SH-BPEL QoS Manager1 QoS Manager4 Client Report “Integration and consistency problems”: is being completed QoS Manager3 QoS Manager2

  23. Assumption on QoS Manager deployment WS-Diamond review LAAS-CNRS September 2007

  24. Assumption on QoS Manager deployment (1/4) • First case: Pair of WS-Requester (WS-R) and WS-Provider (WS-P) without BPEL on the both sides. (Requester may be a simple client…) • Deployment possibilities: • Modifying requester code to send requests to the FS (Require access to the requester code), OR • Placing the FS in the URL of the initial WS-P (Require access privileges to the Provider-side to deploy directory) WS-R WS-P

  25. Assumption on QoS Manager deployment (2/4) • Second case: With PBEL on the left side (Requester-side) • Loss of communication-related errors, no request-side interception for standard BPEL. • May be possible for SH-BPEL which may provide QoS values of requester-side. • Deployment possibilities: • Modifying BPEL code to send requests to the FS (Require access to BPEL code), OR • Placing the FS in the URL of the initial WS-P (Require access privileges to the Provider-side to deploy directory) BPEL-R WS-P

  26. Assumption on QoS Manager deployment (3/4) • Third case: With PBEL on the right side (Provider-side) • Monitoring is Ok. • Repair by class-level substitution is OK: • We can maintain the session information which is saved in the request SOAP Header (RelatesTo, MessageID, etc.) • Deployment possibilities: • Modifying WS-R code to send requests to the FS (Require access to WS-R code) WS-R BPEL-P

  27. Assumption on QoS Manager deployment (4/4) • Fourth case: With PBEL on the both sides • Loss of communication-related errors, no request-side interception for standard BPEL. • May be possible for SH-BPEL which may provide QoS values of requester-side. • Repair by class-level substitution is OK: • We can maintain the session information which is saved in the request SOAP Header (RelatesTo, MessageID, etc.) • Deployment possibilities: • Modifying BPEL code to send requests to the FS (Require access to BPEL code) BPEL-R BPEL-P

More Related