Analysis of Self-⋆ and P2P Systems Using Refinement

  • Manamiary Bruno Andriamiarina
  • Dominique Méry
  • Neeraj Kumar Singh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8477)

Abstract

Distributed systems and applications are becoming increasingly complex, due to factors such as dynamic topology, heterogeneity of components, failure detection. Therefore, they require effective techniques for guaranteeing safety, security and convergence. The self-⋆ systems are based on the idea of managing efficiently complex systems and architectures without user interaction. This paper presents a methodology for verifying distributed systems and ensuring safety and convergence requirements: Correct-by-construction and service-as-event paradigms are used for formalizing the system requirements using incremental refinement in Event B. Moreover, this paper describes a mechanized proof of correctness of the self-⋆ systems along with a case study related to the P2P-based self-healing protocol.

Keywords

Distributed systems self-⋆ self-healing self-stabilization P2P Event B liveness service-as-event 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andriamiarina, M.B., Méry, D., Singh, N.K.: Integrating Proved State-Based Models for Constructing Correct Distributed Algorithms. In: Johnsen, E.B., Petre, L. (eds.) IFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7940, pp. 268–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andriamiarina, M.B., Méry, D., Singh, N.K.: Analysis of Self-⋆ and P2P Systems using Refinement (Full Report). Technical Report, LORIA, Nancy, France (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berns, A., Ghosh, S.: Dissecting self-* properties. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Third IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, SASO 2009, pp. 10–19. EEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dolev, S.: Self-Stabilization. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamport, L.: A temporal logic of actions. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst. 16(3), 872–923 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leavens, G.T., Abrial, J.-R., Batory, D.S., Butler, M.J., Coglio, A., Fisler, K., Hehner, E.C.R., Jones, C.B., Miller, D., Jones, S.L.P., Sitaraman, M., Smith, D.R., Stump, A.: Roadmap for enhanced languages and methods to aid verification. In: Jarzabek, S., Schmidt, D.C., Veldhuizen, T.L. (eds.) GPCE, pp. 221–236. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marquezan, C.C., Granville, L.Z.: Self-* and P2P for Network Management - Design Principles and Case Studies. Springer Briefs in Computer Science. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Méry, D.: Refinement-based guidelines for algorithmic systems. International Journal of Software and Informatics 3(2-3), 197–239 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Méry, D., Singh, N.K.: Automatic code generation from event-b models. In: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Information and Communication Technology, SoICT 2011, pp. 179–188. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith, G., Sanders, J.W.: Formal development of self-organising systems. In: González Nieto, J., Reif, W., Wang, G., Indulska, J. (eds.) ATC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5586, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manamiary Bruno Andriamiarina
    • 1
  • Dominique Méry
    • 1
  • Neeraj Kumar Singh
    • 2
  1. 1.LORIAUniversité de LorraineVandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance
  2. 2.McMaster Centre for Software CertificationMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations