Advertisement

Cloud Service Selection Based on Variability Modeling

  • Erik Wittern
  • Jörn Kuhlenkamp
  • Michael Menzel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7636)

Abstract

The selection among Cloud services is a recent problem in research and practice. The diversity of decision-relevant criteria, configurability of Cloud services and the need to involve human decision-makers require holistic support through models, methodologies and tools. Existing Cloud service selection approaches do not address all stated difficulties at the same time. We present an approach to capture capabilities of Cloud services and requirements using variability modeling. We use Cloud feature models (CFMs) as a representation mechanism and describe how they are utilized for requirements elicitation and filtering within a presented Cloud service selection process (CSSP) that includes human decision-makers. Filtering produces a reduced number of valid Cloud service configurations that can be further assessed with current multi-criteria decision making-based selection approaches. We present software tools that we use to demonstrate the applicability of our approach in a use case about selecting among Cloud storage services.

Keywords

Cloud service selection variability modeling feature modeling decision-making 

References

  1. 1.
    Alves, V., Gheyi, R., Massoni, T., Kulesza, U., Borba, P., Lucena, C.: Refactoring Product Lines. In: Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2006, pp. 201–210. ACM, Portland (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated Analysis of Feature Models 20 Years Later: A Literature Review. Information Systems 35(6), 615–636 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated Reasoning on Feature Models. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 491–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    COCKPIT Project: Citizens Collaboration and Co-Creation in Public Service Delivery (2012), http://www.cockpit-project.eu
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Formalizing Cardinality-based Feature Models and their Specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(1), 7–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Staged Configuration through Specialization and Multilevel Configuration of Feature Models. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(2), 143–169 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Godse, M., Mulik, S.: An Approach for Selecting Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Product. In: Proc. of the 2009 IEEE Int. Conf. on Cloud Computing, CLOUD 2009, pp. 155–158. IEEE, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karataş, A.S., Oğuztüzün, H., Doğru, A.: Mapping Extended Feature Models to Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 286–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, A., Yang, X., Kandula, S., Zhang, M.: CloudCmp: Comparing Public Cloud Providers. In: Proc. of the 10th Annual Conf. on Internet Measurement, IMC 2010, pp. 1–14. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Menzel, M., Schönherr, M., Tai, S.: (MC2)2: Criteria, Requirements and a Software Prototype for Cloud Infrastructure Decisions. Software: Practice and Experience (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ur Rehman, Z., Hussain, F., Hussain, O.: Towards Multi-Criteria Cloud Service Selection. In: Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, IMIS 2011, pp. 44–48. IEEE, Perth (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruiz-Alvarez, A., Humphrey, M.: An Automated Approach to Cloud Storage Service Selection. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Scientific Cloud Computing, pp. 39–48. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saripalli, P., Pingali, G.: MADMAC: Multiple Attribute Decision Methodology for Adoption of Clouds. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Cloud Computing, pp. 316–323. IEEE, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thüm, T., Batory, D., Kastner, C.: Reasoning About Edits to Feature Models. In: Proc. of the 31st Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, ICSE 2009, pp. 254–264. IEEE, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wittern, E., Zirpins, C.: On the Use of Feature Models for Service Design: The Case of Value Representation. In: Cezon, M., Wolfsthal, Y. (eds.) ServiceWave 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6569, pp. 110–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wittern, E., Zirpins, C., Rajshree, N., Jain, A.N., Spais, I., Giannakakis, K.: A Tool Suite to Model Service Variability and Resolve It Based on Stakeholder Preferences. In: Pallis, G., Jmaiel, M., Charfi, A., Graupner, S., Karabulut, Y., Guinea, S., Rosenberg, F., Sheng, Q.Z., Pautasso, C., Ben Mokhtar, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7221, pp. 250–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wohlstadter, E., Tai, S., Mikalsen, T., Rouvellou, I., Devanbu, P.: GlueQoS: Middleware to Sweeten Quality-of-Service Policy Interactions. In: Proc. of the 26th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, ICSE 2004, pp. 189–199. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Wittern
    • 1
  • Jörn Kuhlenkamp
    • 1
  • Michael Menzel
    • 2
  1. 1.eOrganization Research GroupKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Research Center for Information TechnologyKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)Germany

Personalised recommendations