The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 33–55 | Cite as

Improving Resource Management in Distributed Systems using Language-Level Structuring Concepts

  • C. Eckert
  • M. Pizka


Currently, a shift of paradigm from sequential to distributed computing can be observed. Tremendous efforts are needed to cope with the challenging demands that are inherent to this transition. The two most important issues concern programming support for developing large-scale distributed applications and the efficient execution of such applications on top of a distributed hardware configuration. This paper presents a new language and object-based approach called MoDiS to cope with these demands. Distributed systems are developed and transformed into executables following a systematic, top-down driven method. Language-level is intended to mean that a high-level programming language is used to develop operating system services as well as user-level applications. The language-level concepts employed are based on objects and support advanced structuring features. Structural dependencies between objects are implicitly determined at the application level and exploited by the distributed resource management system to transform applications into efficient executables.

distributed system resource management programming language 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ada. The Programming Language Ada Reference Manual, volume 155 of LNCS. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANSA. An engineers introduction to the architecture. Technical Report TR-03-02, APM Ltd., Cambridge, England, November 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henri E. Bal. Report on the programming language Orca. Technical report, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Balter, S. Lacourte, and M. Riveill. The Guide language. The Computer Journal, 37(6):519–530, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. N. Bershad, S. Savage, P. Pardyak, E. G. Sirer, M. Fiuczynski, D. Becker, S. Eggers, and C. Chambers. Extensibility, safty and performance in the SPIN operating system. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, pages 267–284, Copper Mountaun Resort, Colorado, December 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Cahill, Ch. Hogan, A. Judge, D. O'Grady, B. Tangney, and P. Taylor. Extensible systems – the Tigger approach. In Proceedings of the SIGOPS European Workshop, pages 151–153, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.H. Campbell, N. Islam, D. Raula, and P. Madany. Designing and implementing CHOICES: an object– oriented system in C++. Communications of the ACM, 36(9):117–126, September 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    David C. Cann. SISAL 1.2:Abrief introduction and tutorial. Technical report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Comandos Consortium. The Comandos Distributed Application Platform. 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crispin Cowan, Tito Autrey, Charles Krasic, Calton Pu, and Jonathan Walpole. Fast concurrent dynamic linking for an adaptive operating system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. B. Czech. Dycos-a customizable kernel architecture supporting distributed operating environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Algorithms And Architectures for Parallel Processing (ICA3PP), pages 203–210, Melbourne, Australia, December 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Eckert and H.-M.Windisch. A top-down driven, object-based approach to application-specific operating system design. In Marvin Theimer Luis-Felipe Cabrera, editor, Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Object-Orientation in Operating Systems, August 14th-15th 1995, Lund, Sweden, pages 153–156, August 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Claudia Eckert and Hans-Michael Windisch. A new approach to match operating systems to application needs. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems, pages 499–503, Washington, D.C. USA, October 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    John B. Carter et al. Implementation and performance of Munin. Technical report, Computer System Laboratory, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mike Accetta et al. Mach: A new kernel foundation for unix development. Technical report, CS Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, August 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P.P. Spies et al. Concepts for the construction of distributed systems. SFB-Bericht 342/09/96ATUM-19618, Technische Universitat Munchen, Institut fur Informatik, March 1996. in german.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Groh. Designing an efficient resource management system for parallel distributed systems by the use of a graph replacement system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA), pages 215–225, August 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Groh, M. Pizka, and J. Rudolph. Shadow Stacks – a hardware-supported DSM for objects of any granularity. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Algorithms And Architectures for Parallel Processing (ICA3PP), pages 225–238, Melbourne, Australia, Dec 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Gunaseelan and Richard J. LeBlanc. Distributed Eiffel: a language for programming multi-granular distributed objects on the Clouds operating system. Technical Report GIT-CC-91/50, Georgia Institute of Technology and Atlanta, GA, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Kiczales, J. des Rivieres, and D. Bobrow. The Art of the Metaobject Protocol. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Lea, Y. Yokote, and J. Itho. Adaptive operating system design using reflection. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Hot Topics on Operating Systems, pages 95–100, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kau Li and Paul Hudak. Memory coherence in shared virtual memory systems. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 7(4):321–359, November 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bertrand Meyer. Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice–Hall International Ltd., UK, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG. The common object request broker: Architecture and specification. Technical report, Object Management Group, July 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OSF. Introduction to OSF DCE. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Pizka, C. Eckert, and S. Groh. Evolving software tools for new distributed computing environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA), pages 87–96, Las Vegas, NV, July 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Markus Pizka. Design and implementation of the GNU insel–compilergic. Technical report, TUM¨unchen, April 1997. SFB–Bericht 342/09/97 A TUM–I9713.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ralph Radermacher. An Execution Environment with Integrated Load Balancing for Distributed and Parallel Systems. PhD thesis, Munich, Department of Computer Science, 1996. in german.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Seltzer, Y. Endo, C. Small, and K. Smith. An introduction to the architecture of the vino-kernel. Technical Report TR-34-94, Computer Science, Harvard University, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Steensgaard and E. E. Jul. Object and native code thread mobility among heterogeneous computers. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 68–78, Dezember 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bjarne Stroustrup. The C++ Programming Language. Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 2nd edition, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    L. van Doorn, P. Homburg, and A. S. Tanenbaum. Paramecium: An extensible object-based kernel. In Proceedings of the 5th Hot Topics on Operating Systems (HotOS) workshop, pages 86–89, Orcas Island, WA, May 1995.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    H.-M.Windisch. Improving the efficiency of object invocations by dynamic object replication. In Proceedings of International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applicationsof (PDPTA), pages 680–688, University of Georgia, November 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    H.-M. Windisch. The distributed programming language insel – concepts and implementation. In First International Workshop on High-Level Programming Models and Supportive Environments, pages 17–24, April 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Z.Wu and R.J. Stroud. Using metaobject protocols to structure operating systems. In Marvin Theimer Luis-Felipe Cabrera, editor, Proceedings of the IEEE InternationalWorkshop on Object-Orientation in Operating Systems, August 14th-15th 1995, Lund, Sweden, pages 228–231, August 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Y. Yokote. The Apertos reflective operating system – the concept and its implementation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Orientated Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), pages 414–434. ACM Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Eckert
    • 1
  • M. Pizka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations