Advertisement

Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 273–307 | Cite as

A model-driven approach for the generation of configurations for highly available software systems

  • Pejman SalehiEmail author
  • Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj
  • Maria Toeroe
  • Ferhat Khendek
Original Paper
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

High availability of services is an important requirement for mission-critical systems. The Service Availability Forum has defined standards to support the realization of high available systems. Among these standards, the Availability Management Framework (AMF) is perhaps the most important one. AMF is a middleware service that coordinates redundant application components to ensure the high availability of the services. AMF requires a configuration that describes the provided services, their types, and the deployment infrastructure. The process of generating an AMF configuration takes as input the description of the software characteristics as well as the Configuration Requirements that specify the services to be provided. Due to the large number of parameters to be taken into account, the generation of an AMF configuration can be a difficult and error-prone task. This paper proposes a new approach for the automatic generation of AMF configurations. The proposed solution is model-driven and is based on UML profiles which capture the concepts related to Configuration Requirements, software description, and AMF configurations. AMF configurations are generated using ATL-based transformations defined between these different profiles.

Keywords

High availability Software dependability Model-driven software configuration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and Ericsson.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudry B, Dinh-Trong T, Mottu JM, Simmonds D, France R, Ghosh S, Fleurey F, Le Traon Y (2006) Model transformation testing challenges. In: Proceedings of IMDT workshop in conjunction with ECMDA’06, BilbaoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baudry B, Ghosh S, Fleurey F, France R, Traon YL, Mottu JM (2010) Barriers to systematic model transformation testing. Commun ACM 53(6):139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beizer B (1995) Black-box testing: techniques for functional testing of software and systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buskens R, Gonzalez OJ (2006) Model-centric development of highly available software systems. In: Proceedings of international conference on dependable systems and networks, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabot J, Clarisó R, Riera D (2008) Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. In: MoDeVVa 2008. ICST workshop, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabot J, Teniente E (2009) Incremental integrity checking of UML/OCL conceptual schemas. J Syst Softw 82(9):1459–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabot J, Clarisó R, Guerra E, de Lara J (2010) Verification and validation of declarative model-to-model transformations through invariants. J Syst Softw 83:283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciancone A, Filieri A, Mirandola R (2010) MANTra: towards model transformation testing. In: Proceeding of the 7th international conference on the quality of information and communications technology, Porto, pp 97–105Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eclipse Foundation, Eclipse model transformation project. http://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.mmt.atl. Accessed Oct 2015
  10. 10.
    Eclipse Foundation, Eclipse modeling framework (EMF). http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/. Accessed Oct 2015
  11. 11.
    Ehrig H, Ehrig K, Ermel C, Hermann F, Taentzer G (2007) Information preserving bidirectional model transformations. In: Proceeding of FASE’07, vol 4422, LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 72–86Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinrich T, Love N, Petrie C, Ramshaw L, Sahai A, Singhal S (2004) Using object-oriented constraint satisfaction for automated configuration generation. In: DSOM 2004. LNCS, vol 3278, pp 159–170Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jouault F, Allilaire F, Bézivin J, Kurtev I (2008) ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci Comput Program 72(1–2):31–39MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanso A, Toeroe M, Khendek F, Hamou-Lhadj A (2008) Automatic generation of AMF compliant configurations. In: Nanya T, Maruyama F, Pataricza A, Malek M (eds) ISAS 2008. LNCS, vol 5017. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 155–170Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanso A, Toeroe M, Hamou-Lhadj A, Khendek F (2009) Generating AMF configurations from software vendor constraints and user requirements. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES 2009). IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 454–461Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Küster JM (2004) Systematic validation of model transformations. In: The 3rd UML workshop in software model engineering (WiSME 2004). http://www.metamodel.com/wisme-2004/accept/4.pdf
  17. 17.
    Küster JM (2006) Definition and validation of model transformations. Softw Syst Model 5(3):233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kövi A, Varró D (2007) An eclipse-based framework for AIS service configurations. In: Proceedings of 4th international service availability symposium, ISAS 2007, pp 110–126Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lengyel L, Madari I, Asztalos M, Levendovszky T (2010) Validating query/view/transformation relations. In: Proceeding of 2010 workshop on model-driven engineering, verification, and validation, Oslo, pp 7–12Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGill MJ, Cheng BHC (2007) Test-driven development of a model transformation with jemtte. Technical report, Software Engineering and Network Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mottu JM, Baudry B, Traon YL (2008) Model transformation testing: oracle issue. In: Proceeding of MoDeVVa workshop colocated with ICST 2008, LillehammerGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group, Meta object facility (MOF) 2.0 query/view/transformation, V1.1 formal/2011-01-01. http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.1/
  23. 23.
    OpenSAF Foundation, http://www.opensaf.org/. Accessed Oct 2015
  24. 24.
    Piedad F, Hawkins M (2001) High availability: design, techniques, and processes. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. ISBN 9780130962881Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Service Availability Forum™. http://www.saforum.org, accessed October 2015
  26. 26.
    Service Availability Forum™, Overview SAI-overview-B.05.03. http://www.saforum.org/link/linkshow.asp?link_id=222259&assn_id=16627
  27. 27.
    Service Availability Forum™, Application interface specification. availability management framework SAI-AIS-AMF-B.04.01Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Service Availability Forum, Application interface specification. Software Management Framework SAI-AIS-SMF-A.01.01Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Salehi P, Khendek F, Toeroe M, Hamou-Lhadj A (2009) Checking service instance protection for AMF configurations. In: Proceeding of the 3rd IEEE international conference on secure software integration and reliability improvement, Shanghai, pp 269–274Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salehi P, Khendek F, Hamou-Lhadj A, Toeroe M (2011) AMF configurations: checking for service protection using heuristics. In: Proceeding of the 7th international conference on network and service management, Paris, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salehi P, Hamou-Lhadj A, Toeroe M, Khendek F (2014) A model driven approach for availability management framework configurations generation. USPTO#: US8752003 B2, Patent filled 2011, granted 2014Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salehi P, Hamou-Lhadj A, Toeroe M, Khendek F (2015) A precise UML domain specific modeling language for service availability management. J Comput Stand Interfaces 1:4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2015.09.009 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sahai A, Singhal S, Machiraju V, Joshi R (2004) Automated generation of resource configurations through policies. In: 5th IEEE international workshop on policies for distributed systems and networksGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sen S, Baudry B, Mottu JM (2008) On combining multi-formalism knowledge to select models for model transformation testing. In: Proceeding of the 1st international conference on software testing, verification, and validation, Lillehammer, pp 328–337Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Szatmári Z, Kövi A, Reitenspiess M (2008) Applying MDA approach for the SA forum platform. In: 2nd workshop on middleware-application interaction. ACMGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Turenne M, Kanso A, Gherbi A, Razzook S (2014) A tool chain for generating the description files of highly available software. In: Proceeding of the 29th international conference on automated software engineering, Vasteras, pp 867–870Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Turenne M, Kanso A, Gherbi A, Barrett R (2014) Automatic generation of description files for highly available services. In: Proceeding of the 6th international workshop on software engineering for resilient systems, Budapest, pp 40–54Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Varro D, Pataricza A (2003) Automated formal verification of model transformations. In: Proceeding of the UML’03 workshop, Number TUM-I0323 in Technical Report, Technische Universität München, pp 63–78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pejman Salehi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj
    • 2
  • Maria Toeroe
    • 3
  • Ferhat Khendek
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Information TechnologyConestoga College Institute of Technology and Advanced LearningKitchenerCanada
  2. 2.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Ericsson Inc.MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations