Optimizing decomposition of software architecture for local recovery
- 485 Downloads
The increasing size and complexity of software systems has led to an amplified number of potential failures and as such makes it harder to ensure software reliability. Since it is usually hard to prevent all the failures, fault tolerance techniques have become more important. An essential element of fault tolerance is the recovery from failures. Local recovery is an effective approach whereby only the erroneous parts of the system are recovered while the other parts remain available. For achieving local recovery, the architecture needs to be decomposed into separate units that can be recovered in isolation. Usually, there are many different alternative ways to decompose the system into recoverable units. It appears that each of these decomposition alternatives performs differently with respect to availability and performance metrics. We propose a systematic approach dedicated to optimizing the decomposition of software architecture for local recovery. The approach provides systematic guidelines to depict the design space of the possible decomposition alternatives, to reduce the design space with respect to domain and stakeholder constraints and to balance the feasible alternatives with respect to availability and performance. The approach is supported by an integrated set of tools and illustrated for the open-source MPlayer software.
KeywordsSoftware architecture design Fault tolerance Local recovery Availability Performance
We acknowledge the feedback from the discussions with our TRADER project (TRADER, 2011) partners from NXP Research, NXP Semiconductors, TASS, Philips Consumer Electronics, Design Technology Institute, Embedded Systems Institute, IMEC, Leiden University and Delft University of Technology. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback to improve this paper.
- Aleti, A., Björnander, S., Grunske, L., & Meedeniya, I. (2009). Archeopterix: An extendable tool for architecture optimization of aadl models. In Proceedings of the ICSE 2009 workshop on model-based methodologies for pervasive and embedded software (MOMPES), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 61–71.Google Scholar
- Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
- Anquetil, N., Fourrier, C., & Lethbridge, T. (1999). Experiments with clustering as a software remodularization method. In Proceedings of the 6th working conference on reverse engineering (WCRE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 235–245.Google Scholar
- Bachman, F., Bass, L., & Klein, M. (2003). Deriving architectural tactics: A step toward methodical architectural design. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2003-TR-004, SEI, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
- Boudali, H., Sozer, H., & Stoelinga, M. (2009). Architectural availability analysis of software decomposition for local recovery. In Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on secure software integration and reliability improvement, Shanghai, China, pp. 14–22.Google Scholar
- Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., & Stal, M. (1996). Pattern-oriented software architecture, a system of patterns. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Candea, G., Kawamoto, S., Fujiki, Y., Friedman, G., & Fox, A. (2004b). Microreboot: A technique for cheap recovery. In Proceedings of the 6th symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
- Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., & Stafford, J. (2002a). Documenting software architectures: Views and beyond. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Clements, P., Kazman, R., & Klein, M. (2002b). Evaluating software architectures: Methods and case studies. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Patterson, D. et al. (2002). Recovery oriented computing (ROC): Motivation, definition, techniques, and case studies. Technical Report UCB/CSD-02-1175, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Dashofy, E., van der Hoek, A., & Taylor, R. (2002). An infrastructure for the rapid development of XML-based architecture description languages. In Proceedings of the 22rd international conference on software engineering (ICSE), ACM, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 266–276.Google Scholar
- Davey, J., & Burd, E. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of data clustering for software remodularization. In Proceedings of the 7th working conference on reverse engineering (WCRE). IEEE Computer Society, pp. 268–278.Google Scholar
- Fenlason, J., & Stallman, R. (2000). GNU gprof: The GNU profiler. Free Software Foundation, http://www.gnu.org.
- Grassi, V., Mirandola, R., & Sabetta, A. (2005). An XML-based language to support performance and reliability modeling and analysis in software architectures. In R. Reussner, J. Mayer, J. Stafford, S. Overhage, S. Becker, & P. Schroeder (Eds.), QoSA/SOQUA, Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3712, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar
- Grunske, L., Lindsay, P., Bondarev, E., Papadopoulos, Y., & Parker, D. (2007). An outline of an architecture-based method for optimizing dependability attributes of software-intensive systems. In R. de Lemos, C. Gacek, & A. B. Romanovsky (Eds.), Architecting dependable systems IV (pp. 188–209). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Harris, J., Hirst, J., & Mossinghoff, M. (2000). Combinatorics and graph theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Herder, J., Bos, H., Gras, B., Homburg, P., & Tanenbaum, A. (2007). Failure resilience for device drivers. In Proceedings of the 37th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN). Edinburgh, UK, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
- Heyliger, G. (1994). Coupling. In J. Marciniak (Ed.), Encyclopedia of software engineering (pp. 220–228). Wiley.Google Scholar
- Huang, Y., & Kintala, C. (1995). Software fault tolerance in the application layer. In M. R. Lyu (Ed.), Software fault tolerance, chapter 10 (pp. 231–248). New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
- Jokiaho, T., Herrmann, F., Penkler, D., & Moser, L. (2003). The service availability forum application interface specification. RTC Magazine, 12(6), 52–58.Google Scholar
- Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., & Peterson, A. (1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, SEI.Google Scholar
- Laprie, J. C., Arlat, J., Beounes, C., & Kanoun, K. (1995). Architectural issues in software fault tolerance. In M. R. Lyu (Ed.), Software fault tolerance, chapter 3 (pp. 47–80). Cichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- MPlayer (2010). MPlayer official website. http://www.mplayerhq.hu/. Accessed 31 Mar 2011.
- Necula, G., McPeak, S., Rahul, S., & Weimer, W. (2002). CIL: Intermediate language and tools for analysis and transformation of C programs. In Proceedings of the conference on compiler construction, pp. 213–228.Google Scholar
- Nguyen, G., Hluchý, L., Tran, V., & Kotocova, M. (2001). DDG task recovery for cluster computing. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on parallel processing and applied mathematics, Springer, Naleczow, Poland, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2328, pp. 369–378.Google Scholar
- Object Management Group (2001) Fault tolerant CORBA. Tech. Rep. OMG Document formal/2001-09-29, Object Management Group.Google Scholar
- Pareto, V. (1896). Cours D’ economie politique. Lausanne, Switzerland: F. RougeGoogle Scholar
- Ross, S. (2007). Introduction to probability models. San Diego: Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
- di Ruscio, D., Malavolta, I., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., & Pierantonio, A. (2010). Developing next generation ADLs through MDE techniques. In Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE), Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
- Ruskey, F. (1993). Simple combinatorial gray codes constructed by reversing sublists. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC), Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 762, pp. 201–208.Google Scholar
- Ruskey, F. (2003). Combinatorial generation. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, manuscript CSC-425/520Google Scholar
- Santos, G., Duarte, A., Rexachs, D., & Luque, E. (2008). Increasing the performability of computer clusters using RADIC II. In Proceedings of the third international conference on availability, reliability and security, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 653–658.Google Scholar
- Sozer, H., & Tekinerdogan, B. (2008). Introducing recovery style for modeling and analyzing system recovery. In Proceedings of the 7th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA). Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
- TRADER (2011). Trader project, ESI. http://www.esi.nl/projects/trader. Accessed 31-March-2011.
- de Visser, I. (2008). Analyzing user perceived failure severity in consumer electronics products. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Wiggerts, T. (1997). Using clustering algorithms in legacy systems remodularization. In Proceedings of the 4th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar