Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 1431–1455 | Cite as

A weakest link-driven global QoS adjustment approach for optimizing the execution of a composite web service

  • Navinderjit Kaur KahlonEmail author
  • Kuljit Kaur Chahal
  • Sukhleen Bindra Narang
Regular Paper
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

In service-oriented computing, service composition pertains to developing solutions quickly to satisfy new business requirements. Service composition provides flexible integration across distributed and heterogeneous web services to create a composite web service (CWS). However, global quality of service (QoS) of a CWS is dependent on the QoS of multiple component (or partner) web services that are integrated to form the CWS. In this context, an important research challenge is how to optimize the QoS of a CWS by detecting and adapting to runtime anomalies in component web services. A vital research issue is how to provide optimized CWS by effectively monitoring and identifying the weakest links (i.e., component web services with worst performance metrics). In this paper, a novel global QoS adjustment approach based on sensitivity analysis is proposed for detecting a component web service acting as a weakest link or a bottleneck in a CWS. This is demonstrated with an experiment, and an evaluation is performed for representing the effectiveness and performance of the proposed approach.

Keywords

Composite web service Service composition Component web service Weakest link detection Tukey’s fence QoS Global optimization 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Alferez GH, Pelechano V (2017) Achieving autonomic Web service compositions with models at runtime. Comput Electr Eng 63:332–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Masri E, Mahmoud QH (2007) Crawling multiple UDDI business registries. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, ACM, New York, pp 1255–1256Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angarita R, Cardinale Y, Rukoz M (2014) Reliable composite web services execution: towards a dynamic recovery decision. Electronic Notes in Theor Comput Sci 302:5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Angarita R, Rukoz M, Cardinale Y (2016) Modeling dynamic recovery strategy for composite web services execution. World Wide Web 19(1):89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ardagna D, Pernici B (2007) Adaptive service composition in flexible processes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(6):369–384.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2007.1011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodenstaff L, Wombacher A, Reichert M, Jaeger MC (2009) Analyzing impact factors on composite services. In: IEEE international conference on services computing SCC’09, IEEE, Piscataway, pp 218–226Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen M, Yan Y (2014) QoS-aware service composition over graphplan through graph reachability. In: IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC), IEEE, New York, pp 544–551Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardoso J et al (2004) Quality of service for workflows and web service processes. J Web Semant 1:281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elsayed DH, Nasr ES, Alaa El Din M, Gheith MH (2017) Appraisal and analysis of various self-adaptive web service composition approaches. In: Requirements engineering for service and cloud computing. Springer, Cham, pp 229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jaeger MC, Ladner H (2006) A model for the aggregation of QoS in WS compositions involving redundant services. J Digit Inf Manag 4(1):44–49Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaeger MC, Rojec-Goldmann G, Muhl G (2004) QoS aggregation for web service composition using workflow patterns. In: Proceedings of eighth ieee international enterprise distributed object computing conference, EDOC 2004. IEEE, New York, pp 149–159Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    He Q, Han J, Yang Y, Jin H, Schneider JG, Versteeg S (2014) Formulating cost-effective monitoring strategies for service-based systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 40(5):461–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    He Q, Xie X, Wang Y, Ye D, Chen F, Jin H, Yang Y (2017) Localizing runtime anomalies in service-oriented systems. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 10(1):94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lemos AL, Daniel F, Benatallah B (2016) Web service composition: a survey of techniques and tools. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 48(3):33Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li J, Zhang X, Chen S, Song W, Chen D (2014) An efficient and reliable approach for QoS aware service composition. Inf Sci 269:238–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahlon NK, Chahal KK, Narang SB (2016) Managing QoS degradation of partner web services: a proactive and preventive approach. J f Serv Sci Res 8(2):131–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ma H, Bastani F, Yen I, Mei H (2013) QoS-driven service composition with reconfigurable services. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 6(1):20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ma SP, Fanjiang YY, Kuo JY (2014) Dynamic service composition using core service identification. J Inf Sci Eng 30(4):957–972Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Medeiros CGM, Souto Rosa N, Ferreira Pires L (2017) Adaptive service composition based on runtime verification of formal properties. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.  https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2017.588
  21. 21.
    Menasce DA (2004) Response-time analysis of composite Web services. IEEE Internet Comput 8(1):90–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Metzger A, Bohn P (2017) Risk-based proactive process adaptation. In: International conference on service-oriented computing. Springer, Cham, pp 351–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69035-3_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ren K, Song J, Zhu M, Xiao N (2013) A bargaining-driven global QoS adjustment approach for optimizing service composition execution path. J Supercomput 63(1):126–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Summarizing Data—Descriptive Statistics, Teaching and Digital Learning, Boston University School of Public Health. http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/bs/bs704_summarizingdata/bs704_summarizingdata7.html. retrieved on 19 June, 2016
  25. 25.
    Wang H, Gu M, Yu Q, Fei H, Li J, Tao Y (2017) Large-scale and adaptive service composition using deep reinforcement learning. In: Maximilien M, Vallecillo A, Wang J, Oriol M (eds) Service-oriented computing. ICSOC 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10601. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69035-3_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu T, Zhang Y, Lin KJ (2007) Efficient algorithms for Web services selection with end-to-end QoS constraints. ACM Trans Web (TWEB) 1(1):6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1232722.1232728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zeng L, Benatallah B, Ngu A, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Chang H (2004) QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zheng Z, Trivedi KS, Qiu K, Xia R (2017) Semi-markov models of composite web services for their performance, reliability and bottlenecks. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 10(3):448–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhou X, Shen J, Li Y (2013) Immune based chaotic artificial bee colony multiobjective optimization algorithm. In: International conference in swarm intelligence Springer, Berlin, pp 387–395Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Navinderjit Kaur Kahlon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kuljit Kaur Chahal
    • 1
  • Sukhleen Bindra Narang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceGuru Nanak Dev UniversityAmritsarIndia
  2. 2.Department of Electronics TechnologyGuru Nanak Dev UniversityAmritsarIndia

Personalised recommendations