Automated maintenance of service compositions with SLA violation detection and dynamic binding

WSE 2009

Abstract

Web service compositions need to adapt to changes in their constituent web services, in order to maintain functionality and performance. Therefore, service compositions must be able to detect web service failure and performance degradation resulting in the violation of service-level agreements. Automated diagnosis and repair are equally important. However, existing standards and languages for service compositions, such as BPEL, lack constructs for web service monitoring and runtime adaptability, which are pre-requisites for diagnosis and repair. We present a solution for transparent runtime monitoring, as well as automated performance degradation detection, diagnosis, and repair for service compositions expressed as BPEL processes. Our solution uses lightweight monitoring techniques, supports customizable diagnosis and repair strategies, and is compatible with any standards-compliant BPEL engine.

Keywords

Dynamic adaptability SLA violation detection Statistical tests BPEL processes Performance monitoring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Active Endpoints. ActiveBPEL engine. http://www.activevos.com/
  2. 2.
    Anderson T.W., Darling D.A.: Asymptotic theory of certain “Goodness of Fit” criteria based on stochastic processes. Ann. Math. Stat. 23(2), 193–212 (1952)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrikopoulos, V., Fugini, M., Papazoglou, M.P., Parkin, M., Pernici, B., Siadat, S.H.: Qos contract formation and evolution. In: 11th International conference on electronic commerce and web technologies, pp. 119–130 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., Guinea, S.: Towards self-healing composition of services. In: Contributions to Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 27–46. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S.: Dynamo and self-healing BPEL compositions. In: ICSE Companion, pp. 69–70 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S., Pasquale, L.: Integrated and composable supervision of BPEL processes. In: ICSOC ’08: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on service-oriented computing, pp. 614–619 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berger J.: Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    BPEL: BPEL 2.0 standard specification. http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/wsbpel-v2.0.pdf
  9. 9.
    Canfora, G., Di Penta, M., Esposito, R., Perfetto, F., Villani, M.L.: Service composition (re)binding driven by application-specific QoS. In: ICSOC ’06: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on service-oriented computing, pp. 141–152 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Canfora G., Di Penta M., Esposito R., Villani M.L.: A framework for QoS-Aware binding and re-binding of composite web services. J. Syst. Softw. 81(10), 1754–1769 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Châtel, P., Malenfant, J., Truck, I.: Qos-based late-binding of service invocations in adaptive business processes. In: ICWS ’10: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on web services, pp. 227–234. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Châtel P., Truck I., Malenfant J.: Lcp-nets: a linguistic approach for non-functional preferences in a semantic SOA environment. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 16(1), 198–217 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chhetri, M.B., Lin, J., Goh, S., Zhang, J.Y., Kowalczyk, R., Yan, J.: A coordinated architecture for the agent-based service level agreement negotiation of web service composition. In: ASWEC, pp. 90–99 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Comuzzi, M., Pernici, B.: An architecture for flexible web service QoS negotiation. In: EDOC, pp. 70–82 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ezenwoye, O., Masoud Sadjadi, S.: RobustBPEL2: transparent autonomization in business processes through dynamic proxies. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on autonomous decentralized systems (ISADS 2007), pp. 17–24. Sedona, Arizona, March (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ezenwoye O., Sadjadi S.M.: A proxy-based approach to enhancing the autonomic behavior in composite services. JNW 3(5), 42–53 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gmach D., Krompass S., Scholz A., Wimmer M., Kemper A.: Adaptive quality of service management for enterprise services. ACM Trans. Web 2(1), 1–46 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 14764: Software engineering—software life cycle processes—maintenance. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39064 (2006).
  19. 19.
    Lago, U.D., Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: Planning with a language for extended goals. In: The 16th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pp. 447–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leitner, P., Michlmayr, A., Rosenberg, F., Dustdar, S.: Monitoring, prediction and prevention of SLA violations in composite services. In: ICWS ’10: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on web service, pp 369–376 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mann H., Whitney D.: On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 18(1), 50–60 (1947)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mei, L., Chan, W.K., Tse, T.H.: An adaptive service selection approach to service composition. In: ICWS ’08: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on web services, pp. 70–77 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyn S.P., Tweedie R.L.: Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability. Springer, London (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moser, O., Rosenberg, F., Dustdar, S.: Non-intrusive monitoring and service adaptation for WS-BPEL. In: WWW ’08: Proceeding of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 815–824. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mosincat, A., Binder, W.: Transparent runtime adaptability for BPEL processes. In: ICSOC ’08: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on service-oriented computing, pp. 241–255 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mosincat, A., Binder, W.: Automated performance maintenance for service compositions. In: WSE ’09: The 11th IEEE international symposium on web systems evolution, pp. 131–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ncho, A., Aïmeur, E.: Building a multi-agent system for automatic negotiation in web service applications. In: AAMAS ’04: Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1466–1467. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nitto, E.D., Penta, M.D., Gambi, A., Ripa, G., Villani, M.L.: Negotiation of service level agreements: an architecture and a search-based approach. In: ICSOC ’07: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on service-oriented computing, pp. 295–306 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Brien, L., Bass, L., Merson, P.: Quality attributes and service-oriented architectures. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2005-TN-014, CMU - Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, September (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Open Grid Forum. WS-Agreement specification. http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.107.pdf
  31. 31.
    Papazoglou M.P., Traverso P., Dustdar S., Leymann F.: Service-oriented computing: state of the art and research challenges. IEEE Comput. 40(11), 38–45 (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papazoglou M.P., Traverso P., Dustdar S., Leymann F.: Service-oriented computing: a research roadmap. Int. J. Co-op. Inf. Syst. 17(2), 223–255 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pistore, M., Barbon, F., Bertoli, P., Shaparau, D., Traverso, P.: Planning and monitoring web service composition. In: The 8th international conference on artificial intelligence: methodology, systems, applications, pp. 106–115 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Romano J.: Testing Statistical Hypotheses. Springer, Berlin (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skene, J., Lamanna, D.D., Emmerich, W.: Precise service level agreements. In: Proceedings of ICSE ’04, pp. 179–188. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    SOAP. SOAP specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
  37. 37.
    Swanson, E.B.: The dimensions of maintenance. In: ICSE ’76: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering, pp. 492–497. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, (1976)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wetzstein, B., Leitner, P., Rosenberg, F., Brandic, I., Dustdar, S., Leymann, F.: Monitoring and analyzing influential factors of business process performance. In: EDOC, pp. 141–150 (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilcoxon F.: Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull. 1, 80–83 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    WS-Addressing. WS-Addressing standard specification. http://www.w3.org/Submission/ws-addressing/
  41. 41.
    Xiao, H., Chan, B., Zou, Y., Benayon, J.W., O’Farrell, B., Litani, E., Hawkins, J.: A framework for verifying SLA compliance in composed services. In: ICWS ’08: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on web services, pp. 457–464 (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zeng L., Benatallah B., Ngu A.H.H., Dumas M., Kalagnanam J., Chang H.: QoS-Aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(5), 311–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsUniversity of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations