Skip to main content

Task scheduling characterisation in enterprise application integration

Abstract

Cloud computing allows enterprises to incorporate applications and computational resources as services, and thus, enterprises can concentrate on their business processes, without concerning the development, configuration and maintenance of these applications and resources. Integration platforms are one of these services that allow enterprises to integrate applications in order to reduce the maintenance costs and operations of the integration of on-premises platforms. However, high performance on resources offered by the cloud, demands improvement in task scheduling of integration platforms. Our literature review has identified a lack of studies in the field of enterprise application integration, focusing on specificities and vulnerabilities of the task scheduling of integration processes. This is a pioneer work regarding the characterisation of the scheduling of tasks of integration processes. We propose a ranking according to their conceptual models and apply this ranking to five integration processes. Then, we have statistically analysed the influence of each component of their conceptual models on the performance of the execution of these integration processes. We characterise the task scheduling of integration processes and presented a mathematical equation for the makespan as a function of the components of this characterisation. This study can guide software engineers in the optimal task scheduling for integration processes, which can improve the performance runtime systems regarding using the computational resources and result in minimisation of costs of companies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://github.com/gca-research-group/simulation-fifo

References

  1. 1.

    Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silvertein M (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Alipouri Y, Sebt MH, Ardeshir A, Chan WT (2018) Solving the fs-rcpsp with hyper-heuristics: a policy-driven approach. J Oper Res Soc 70:403–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Alkhanak EN, Lee SP, Rezaei R, Parizi RM (2016) Cost optimization approaches for scientific workflow scheduling in cloud and grid computing: a review, classifications, and open issues. J Syst Softw 113:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Angra S, Chanda A, Chawla V (2018) Comparison and evaluation of job selection dispatching rules for integrated scheduling of multi-load automatic guided vehicles serving in variable sized flexible manufacturing system layouts: a simulation study. Manag Sci Lett 8(4):187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Anwar N, Deng H (2018) Elastic scheduling of scientific workflows under deadline constraints in cloud computing environments. Future Internet 10(5):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Baker KR, Trietsch D (2018) Principles of sequencing and scheduling. Wiley, London

    MATH  Book  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ballestín F, Pérez Á, Quintanilla S (2018) Scheduling and rescheduling elective patients in operating rooms to minimise the percentage of tardy patients. J Sched 22(1):1–12

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Basili VR, Rombach D, Kitchenham KSB, Selby D, Pfahl RW (2007) Empirical software engineering issues. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Belusso CLM, Sawicki S, Roos-Frantz F, Frantz RZ (2016) A study of petri nets, Markov Chains and queueing theory as mathematical modelling languages aiming at the simulation of enterprise application integration solutions: a first step. Procedia Comput Sci 100:229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Blazewicz J, Ecker KH, Pesch E, Schmidt G, Sterna M, Weglarz J (2019) Handbook on scheduling: from theory to practice. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Blythe J, Jain S, Deelman E, Gil Y, Vahi K, Mandal A, Kennedy K (2005) Task scheduling strategies for workflow-based applications in grids. IEEE Int Sympos Clust Comput Grid (CCGrid) 2:759–767

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Boehm M, Habich D, Preissler S, Lehner W, Wloka U (2011) Cost-based vectorization of instance-based integration processes. Inf Syst 36(1):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Brahmi Z, Gharbi C (2014) Temporal reconfiguration-based orchestration engine in the cloud computing. In: International Conference on Business Information Systems (ICBIS), pp 73–85

  14. 14.

    Buddala R, Mahapatra SS (2019) Two-stage teaching-learning-based optimization method for flexible job-shop scheduling under machine breakdown. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100(5):1419–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2009) Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Futur Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Canon LC, Jeannot E (2007) A comparison of robustness metrics for scheduling DAGs on heterogeneous systems. In: International Conference on Cluster Computing (IEEE Cluster), pp 558–567

  17. 17.

    Cats O, Gkioulou Z (2017) Modeling the impacts of public transport reliability and travel information on passengers waiting-time uncertainty. EURO J Transp Logist 6(3):247–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Chaari T, Chaabane S, Aissani N, Trentesaux D (2014) Scheduling under uncertainty: survey and research directions. In: International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT), pp 229–234

  19. 19.

    Chirkin AM, Belloum ASZ, Kovalchuk SV, Makkes MX, Melnik MA, Visheratin AA, Nasonov DA (2017) Execution time estimation for workflow scheduling. Futur Gener Comput Syst 75:376–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Chronaki K, Rico A, Casas M, Moretó M, Badia RM, Ayguadé E, Labarta J, Valero M (2017) Task scheduling techniques for asymmetric multi-core systems. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 28(7):2074–2087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cruzes DS, ben Othman L (2017) Threats to validity in empirical software security research. In: Empirical research for software security, pp 295–320

  22. 22.

    Davari M, Demeulemeester E (2017) The proactive and reactive resource-constrained project scheduling problem. J Sched 22:1–27

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    De G, Tan Z, Li M, Huang L, Song X (2018) Two-stage stochastic optimization for the strategic bidding of a generation company considering wind power uncertainty. Energies 11(12):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ding D, Wang Z, Han QL, Wei G (2018) Neural-network-based output-feedback control under round-robin scheduling protocols. IEEE Trans Cybern 75(99):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fan K, Zhai Y, Li X, Wang M (2018) Review and classification of hybrid shop scheduling. Prod Eng Res Devel 12(5):597–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Feldt R, Magazinius A (2010) Validity threats in empirical software engineering research-an initial survey. In: International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp 374–379

  27. 27.

    Frantz RZ, Corchuelo R, Arjona JL (2011a) An efficient orchestration engine for the cloud. In: International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), pp 711–716

  28. 28.

    Frantz RZ, Quintero AMR, Corchuelo R (2011b) A domain-specific language to design enterprise application integration solutions. Int J Cooper Inf Syst 20(02):143–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Frantz RZ, Corchuelo R, Molina-Jiménez C (2012) A proposal to detect errors in enterprise application integration solutions. J Syst Softw 85(3):480–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Frantz RZ, Corchuelo R, Roos-Frantz F (2016) On the design of a maintainable software development kit to implement integration solutions. J Syst Softw 111:89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Frantz RZ, Corchuelo R, Basto-Fernandes V, Rosa-Sequeira F, Roos-Frantz F, Larjona J (2021) A cloud-based integration platform for enterprise application integration: a model-driven engineering approach. Softw Pract Exp 51(4):824–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Freire DL, Frantz RZ, Roos-Frantz F, Sawicki S (2019) Survey on the run-time systems of enterprise application integration platforms focusing on performance. Softw Pract Exp 49(3):341–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Freire DL, Frantz RZ, Roos-Frantz F (2020a) Towards optimal thread pool configuration for run-time systems of integration platforms. Int J Comput Appl Technol 62(2):129–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Freire DL, Frantz RZ, Roos-Frantz F (2020b) Towards optimal thread pool configuration for run-time systems of integration platforms. Int J Comput Appl Technol 62(2):129–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Freire DL, Frantz RZ, Roos-Frantz F, Basto-Fernandes V (2021) Queue-priority optimized algorithm: a novel task scheduling for runtime systems of application integration platforms. J Supercomput 1:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Georges A, Buytaert D, Eeckhout L (2007) Statistically rigorous java performance evaluation. ACM SIGPLAN Not 42(10):57–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ghafouri R, Movaghar A, Mohsenzadeh M (2019) A budget constrained scheduling algorithm for executing workflow application in infrastructure as a service clouds. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 12(1):241–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Giesemann F, Payá-Vayá G, Gerlach L, Blume H, Pflug F, von Voigt G (2017) Using a genetic algorithm approach to reduce register file pressure during instruction scheduling. In: International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation (SAMOS), pp 179–187

  39. 39.

    Guo F, Yu L, Tian S, Yu J (2015) A workflow task scheduling algorithm based on the resources fuzzy clustering in cloud computing environment. Int J Commun Syst 28(6):1053–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Guttridge K, Pezzini M, Golluscio E, Thoo E, Iijima K, Wilcox M (2017) Magic quadrant for enterprise integration platform as a service 2017. Gartner Inc, Technical report

  41. 41.

    Harman M, Lakhotia K, Singer J, White DR, Yoo S (2013) Cloud engineering is search based software engineering too. J Syst Softw 86(9):2225–2241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hilman MH, Rodriguez MA, Buyya R (2018) Multiple workflows scheduling in multi-tenant distributed systems: a taxonomy and future directions. ACM Comput Surv 1(1):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hohpe G (2005) Your coffee shop doesn’t use two-phase commit [asynchronous messaging architecture]. IEEE Softw 22(2):64–66

  44. 44.

    Hohpe G, Woolf B (2004) Enterprise integration patterns: designing, building, and deploying messaging solutions. Addison-Wesley Professional, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hu Y, Zhu F, Zhang L, Lui Y, Wang Z (2019) Scheduling of manufacturers based on chaos optimization algorithm in cloud manufacturing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 58:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Huang J, Süer GA (2015) A dispatching rule-based genetic algorithm for multi-objective job shop scheduling using fuzzy satisfaction levels. Comput Ind Eng 86:29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D (2005) Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ESEM), pp 95–104

  48. 48.

    Kaytez F, Taplamacioglu MC, Cam E, Hardalac F (2015) Forecasting electricity consumption: a comparison of regression analysis, neural networks and least squares support vector machines. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 67:431–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Konsek H (2013) Instant Apache ServiceMix How-to. Packt Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kozik A, Rudek R (2018) An approximate/exact objective based search technique for solving general scheduling problems. Appl Soft Comput 62:347–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Kraisig AR, Welter FC, Haugg IG, Cargnin R, Roos-Frantz F, Sawicki S, Frantz RZ (2016) Mathematical model for simulating an application integration solution in the academic context of unijuí university. Procedia Comput Sci 100:407–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Kuhn R, Hanafee B, Allen J (2017) Reactive design patterns. Manning Publications Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Lee J, Wu H, Ravichandran M, Clark N (2010) Thread tailor: dynamically weaving threads together for efficient, adaptive parallel applications. ACM SIGARCH Comput Archit News 38(3):270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Leonard NE, Levine WS (1995) Using MATLAB to analyze and design control systems. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Lin X, Janak SL, Floudas CA (2004) A new robust optimization approach for scheduling under uncertainty: I. bounded uncertainty. Comput Chem Eng 28(6–7):1069–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Linthicum DS (2017) Cloud computing changes data integration forever: What’s needed right now. IEEE Cloud Comput 4(3):50–53

  57. 57.

    Liu D, Xu Y, Weii Q, Liu X (2018) Residential energy scheduling for variable weather solar energy based on adaptive dynamic programming. J Autom Sin 5(1):36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Ma L, Agrawal K, Chamberlain RD (2014) A memory access model for highly-threaded many-core architectures. Futur Gener Comput Syst 30:202–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Manasrah AM, Ali HB (2018) Workflow scheduling using hybrid GA-PSO algorithm in cloud computing. Wirel Commun Mob Comput 2018:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Manikas K (2016) Revisiting software ecosystems research: a longitudinal literature study. J Syst Softw 117:84–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Manzini M, Erik D, Urgo M, et al (2018) A proactive-reactive approach to schedule an automotive assembly line. In: International Conference on Project Management and Scheduling (PMS), pp 152–155

  62. 62.

    McCarthy RV, McCarthy MM, Ceccucci W, Halawi L (2019) Predictive models using regression. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–121

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Nouiri M, Bekrar A, Jemai A, Trentesaux D, Ammari AC, Niar S (2017) Two stage particle swarm optimization to solve the flexible job shop predictive scheduling problem considering possible machine breakdowns. Comput Ind Eng 112:595–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Nowatzki T, Ardalani N, Sankaralingam K, Weng J (2018) Hybrid optimization/heuristic instruction scheduling for programmable accelerator codesign. In: International conference on parallel architectures and compilation techniques (PACT), pp 1–15

  65. 65.

    Parunak HVD (1991) Characterizing the manufacturing scheduling problem. J Manuf Syst 10(3):241–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Pezzini M, Natis YV, Malinverno P, Iijima K, Thompson J, Thoo E, Guttridge K (2015) Magic quadrant for enterprise integration platform as a service. Gartner, Stamford, pp 1–35

  67. 67.

    Pietri I, Chronis Y, Ioannidis Y (2019) Fairness in dataflow scheduling in the cloud. Inf Syst 83:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Pinedo ML (2016) Scheduling theory, algorithms, and systems. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Pinto G, Castor F, Liu YD (2014) Understanding energy behaviors of thread management constructs. ACM SIGPLAN Not 49:345–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Prasad AVK (2017) Exploring the convergence of big data and the internet of things. IGI Global, New York

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Rameshkumar K, Suresh RK, Mohanasundaram KM (2005) Discrete particle swarm optimization (DPSO) algorithm for permutation flowshop scheduling to minimize makespan. In: International Conference on Advances in Natural Computation (ICNC), pp 572–581

  72. 72.

    Rimal BP, Maier M (2017) Workflow scheduling in multi-tenant cloud computing environments. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 28(1):290–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ritter D, May N, Sachs K, Rinderle-Ma S (2016) Benchmarking integration pattern implementations. In: International Conference on Distributed and Event-Based Systems (DEBS), pp 125–136

  74. 74.

    Ritter D, May N, Rinderle-Ma S (2017) Patterns for emerging application integration scenarios: a survey. Inf Syst 67:36–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Ritter D, Forsberg FN, Rinderle-Ma S (2018) Optimization strategies for integration pattern compositions. In: International Conference on Distributed and Event-Based Systems (DEBS), pp 88–99

  76. 76.

    Rodriguez MA, Buyya R (2018) Scheduling dynamic workloads in multi-tenant scientific workflow as a service platforms. Futur Gener Comput Syst 79:739–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Roos-Frantz F, Binelo M, Frantz RZ, Sawicki S, Basto-Fernandes V (2015) Using petri nets to enable the simulation of application integration solutions conceptual models. In: Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), pp 87–96

  78. 78.

    Russell J, Cohn R (2012) Jitterbit integration server. Book on Demand

  79. 79.

    Saifullah A, Li J, Agrawal K, Lu C, Gill C (2013) Multi-core real-time scheduling for generalized parallel task models. Real Time Syst 49(4):404–435

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Sargent RG (2013) Verification and validation of simulation models. J Simul 7(1):12–24

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Sharma S (2017) Ovum decision matrix highlights the growing importance of ipaas and api platforms in hybrid integration. Technical report, Ovum Consulting

  82. 82.

    Shoukry A, Khader J, Gani S (2019) Improving business process and functionality using IoT based E3-value business model. Electron Mark 1:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Sun D, Yan H, Gao S, Liu X, Buyya R (2018) Rethinking elastic online scheduling of big data streaming applications over high-velocity continuous data streams. J Supercomput 74(2):615–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Surhone LM, Timpledon MT, Marseken SF (2010) Petals ESB. Betascript Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Varela MLR, Ribeiro RA (2014) Distributed manufacturing scheduling based on a dynamic multi-criteria decision model. In: Recent developments and new directions in soft computing. Springer, pp 81–93

  86. 86.

    Wang C, Zhang L, Liu C (2018) Adaptive scheduling method for dynamic robotic cell based on pattern classification algorithm. Int J Model Simul Sci Comput 9(5):1850040-1-1850040–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Witt C, Bux M, Gusew W, Leser U (2019) Predictive performance modeling for distributed batch processing using black box monitoring and machine learning. Inf Syst 82:33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Book  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Xie Y, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Cheng Y, Xu R, Sani AS, Yuan D, Yang Y (2019) A novel directional and non-local-convergent particle swarm optimization based workflow scheduling in cloud-edge environment. Futur Gener Comput Syst 97:36–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Yahouni Z, Mebarki N, Sari Z (2018) Tardiness minimisation heuristic for job shop scheduling under uncertainties using group sequences. Int J Intell Eng Inf 6(1–2):4–22

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Yavuz M, Ergin H (2018) Advanced constraint propagation for the combined car sequencing and level scheduling problem. Comput Oper Res 100:128–139

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Younis MF, Marlowe TJ, Stoyen AD, Tsai G (1999) Statically safe speculative execution for real-time systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(5):701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Zaourar L, Aba MA, Briand D, Philippe JM (2018) Task management on fully heterogeneous micro-server system: modeling and resolution strategies. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 30(23):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Zheng W, Tang L, Sakellariou R (2015) A priority-based scheduling heuristic to maximize parallelism of ready tasks for dag applications. In: International symposium on cluster. Cloud and grid computing (CCGrid). IEEE, pp 596–605

  95. 95.

    Zhou Q, Li G, Li J, Shu L, Zhang C, Yang F (2017) Dynamic priority scheduling of periodic queries in on-demand data dissemination systems. Inf Syst 67:58–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Brazilian Co-ordination Board for the Improvement of University Personnel (CAPES), by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under Grant 309315/2020-4 and the Research Support Foundation of Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS) under Grant 17/2551-0001206-2. We would like to thank Dra. Maria do Rosário Laureano and Dr. Sancho M. Oliveira from the Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) ISTAR-IUL, Lisboa, Portugal, for their helpful comments in earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Z. Frantz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freire, D.L., Frantz, R.Z., Roos-Frantz, F. et al. Task scheduling characterisation in enterprise application integration. J Supercomput (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-021-04119-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Integration application
  • Integration platform
  • Dynamic task scheduling
  • Workflow scheduling
  • Step-wise multiple linear regression