Advertisement

Guidance of Architectural Changes in Technical Systems with Varying Operational Modes

  • Lukas MärtinEmail author
  • Nils-André Forjahn
  • Anne Koziolek
  • Ralf Reussner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11048)

Abstract

Technical systems often rely on redundant platforms. One way to increase dependability is to define various QoS modes, applied to different hardware resources. Switching between modes is limited by resource availability and causes costs for structural changes. Hence, selecting appropriate system architectures for specific resource sets and defining cost-efficient mode sequences is challenging. This short paper proposes an approach to support reconfiguration decisions for varying modes. We extend our decision graphs for traversing architectures towards multi-purpose applicability. We optimise reconfigurations within individual modes while reducing costs of mode changes simultaneously. Graph-based differentiations lead to most efficient mode sequences, transition configurations and visualisations. To respect high reconfigurability, we particularly inspect impacts of resource faults. For evaluation, we apply a subsystem of a micro satellite with multiple operational modes.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the DFG under Priority Programme SPP1593: Design For Future Managed Software Evolution.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnes, J.M., Pandey, A., Garlan, D.: Automated planning for software architecture evolution. In: 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 213–223 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: The palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. Syst. Softw. 82(1), 3–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Florentz, B., Huhn, M.: Embedded systems architecture: evaluation and analysis. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnkovic, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 145–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11921998_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frey, S., Fittkau, F., Hasselbring, W.: Search-based genetic optimization for deployment and reconfiguration of software in the cloud. In: 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 512–521 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jung, G., Joshi, K., Hiltunen, M., Schlichting, R., Pu, C.: Generating adaptation policies for multi-tier applications in consolidated server environments. In: 5th International Conference on Autonomic Computing, pp. 23–32 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koziolek, A., Reussner, R.: Towards a generic quality optimisation framework for component-based system models. In: 14th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Component Based Software Engineering, pp. 103–108 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Löw, S., Herman, J., Schulze, D., Raschke, C.: Modes and more - finding the right attitude for TET-1. In: 12th International Conference on Space Operations (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malek, S., Medvidovic, N., Mikic-Rakic, M.: An extensible framework for improving a distributed software system’s deployment architecture. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38(1), 73–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Märtin, L., Koziolek, A., Reussner, R.H.: Quality-oriented decision support for maintaining architectures of fault-tolerant space systems. In: 2015 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops, pp. 49:1–49:5 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Märtin, L., Nicolai, A.: Towards self-reconfiguration of space systems on architectural level based on qualitative ratings. In: 35th International Aerospace Conference (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Märtin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nils-André Forjahn
    • 1
  • Anne Koziolek
    • 2
  • Ralf Reussner
    • 2
  1. 1.TU BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations