Advertisement

Impact of Transmission Communication Protocol on a Self-adaptive Architecture for Dynamic Network Environments

  • Gabriel Guerrero-ContrerasEmail author
  • José Luis Garrido
  • María José Rodríguez Fórtiz
  • Gregory M. P. O’Hare
  • Sara Balderas-Díaz
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 570)

Abstract

The quality attributes of services deployed on distributed system are critically conditioned by their placement within the distributed system. To this regard, the host election process is one of the main elements in the self-adaptive replication and deployment of services, as one of the possible approaches to address the changing computational conditions of dynamic network environments in order to ensure quality attributes of the system. In this paper, a study and an analysis of the behaviour of a host election algorithm under reliable and non-reliable transmission protocols (TCP and UDP) is presented. The algorithm has been proposed as a basis for a self-adaptive architecture in previous work. The results demonstrate that the reliability of TCP redound in a better efficiency in the system, despite its high latency and higher consumption of bandwidth, in comparison to UDP.

Keywords

Software architecture Autonomic computing Election algorithm Service availability Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research work is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the R&D Project Ref. TIN2016-79484-R, and the Scholarship Program FPU ref. FPU13/05520 granted by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed, A., Yasumoto, K., Ito, M., Shibata, N., Kitani, T.: HDAR: highly distributed adaptive service replication for MANETs. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E94–D, 91–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandrakala, C.B., Prema, K.V., Hareesha, K.S.: Improved data availability and fault tolerance in MANET by replication. In: 3rd IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC 2013), pp. 324–329. IEEE, February 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chlamtac, I., Conti, M., Liu, J.J.N.: Mobile ad hoc networking: imperatives and challenges. Ad Hoc Netw. 1(1), 13–64 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choudhury, P., Sarkar, A., Debnath, N.C.: Deployment of service oriented architecture in MANET: a research roadmap. In: 2011 9th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, pp. 666–670. IEEE, July 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clausen, T., Jacquet, P., Adjih, C., Laouiti, A., Minet, P., Muhlethaler, P., Qayyum, A., Viennot, L.: Optimized link state routing protocol. Network Working Group, pp. 1–76 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derhab, A., Badache, N.: A pull-based service replication protocol in mobile ad hoc networks. Eur. Trans. Telecommun. 18(1), 1–11 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guerrero-Contreras, G., Garrido, J.L., Balderas-Diaz, S., Rodriguez-Dominguez, C.: A context-aware architecture supporting service availability in mobile cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. PP(99), 1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerrero-Contreras, G., Rodríguez-Domínguez, C., Balderas-Díaz, S., Garrido, J.L.: Dynamic replication and deployment of services in mobile environments. In: Rocha, A., Correia, A.M., Costanzo, S., Reis, L.P. (eds.) New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies. AISC, vol. 353, pp. 855–864. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamdy, M., Derhab, A., König-Ries, B.: A comparison on MANETs’ service replication schemes: interest versus topology prediction. In: Özcan, A., Chaki, N., Nagamalai, D. (eds.) WiMo 2010. CCIS, vol. 84, pp. 202–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14171-3_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krill, P.: Make way for SOA 2.0. InfoWorld (2006). http://www.infoworld.com/t/architecture/make-way-soa-20-420
  11. 11.
    Mayhew, G.L.: Quality of service in mission orientated ad-hoc networks. In: 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–9, March 2007Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Psaier, H., Juszczyk, L., Skopik, F., Schall, D., Dustdar, S.: Runtime behavior monitoring and self-adaptation in service-oriented systems, pp. 164–173 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, K., Li, B.: Efficient and guaranteed service coverage in partitionable mobile ad-hoc networks. In: Proceedings of Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, vol. 2, pp. 1089–1098. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weyns, D., Ahmad, T.: Claims and evidence for architecture-based self-adaptation: a systematic literature review. In: Drira, K. (ed.) ECSA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7957, pp. 249–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39031-9_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Guerrero-Contreras
    • 1
    Email author
  • José Luis Garrido
    • 1
  • María José Rodríguez Fórtiz
    • 1
  • Gregory M. P. O’Hare
    • 2
  • Sara Balderas-Díaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering Department, E.T.S.I.I.T.University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and Earth InstituteUniversity College DublinBelfield, Dublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations