Advertisement

Using Sla Based Approach To Handle Sabotage Tolerance In The Grids

Chapter

Abstract

This Work Explores The Potential Of Employing Service Level Agreements To Make Grids Sabotage Tolerant. The Complex Nature Of The Grid Requires Comprehensive Security And Trust Solutions That Can Encompass Different Aspects Of Their Operational Environments. In This Paper, We Argue That The Use Of Service Level Agreement (Sla) Based Exchange Of Information (Negotiations Of Slacontracts) Can Enhance The Efficiency Of The Grid Security Architecture By Providing A Sabotage Tolerant System Design. The Use Of An Sla-Based Approach Covers Nearly The Entire Spectrum Of The Grid Applications And Grid Based Systems, Where Sabotage Tolerance Is An Essential Requirement, Especially In The Case When The Grid Spans The Organizational Border, Moving Under The Collaborative Control Of Potential Competing Stakeholders.

Keywords

Grid Computing Sabotage Tolerance Service Level Agreement (SLA) Security Negotiations Trust parameters 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    David P. Anderson. Boinc: A system for public-resource computing and storage. In: GRID ’04: The Fifth IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing, pages 4-10, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Steve Anderson et al.Web services secure conversation language(WS- SecureConversation), September, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Andrieux, K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, K. Keahey, H. Ludwig, J. Pruyne, J. Rofrano, S. Tuecke, and Ming Xu. Web services agreement specification (WS-Agreement), September 20, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Commercial grid solutions. Grid Computing Planet, December 18, 2006. available at http://www.gridcomputingplanet.com/resources/article.php/933781.
  5. [5]
    Y. Demchenko, L. Gommans, C. de Laat, and B. Oudenaarde. Web services and grid security vulnerabilities and threats analysis and model. In: GRID ’05: The 6th IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing, pages 262-267, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Domingues, B. Sousa, and L.M. Silva. Sabotage-tolerance and trust management in Desktop Grid computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 23(7):904-912, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Wenliang Du, Jing Jia, M. Mangal, and M. Murugesan. Uncheatable grid computing. In: ICDCS ’04: The 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS’04), pages 4-11, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Ermisch and D. Gambetta. People’s trust: The design of a survey-based experiment. IZA Discussion Papers 2216, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2006. available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2216.html.
  9. [9]
    J. Hughes et al. Technical overview of the oasis security assertion markup language (SAML), v1.1. OASIS, May, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Kondo, F. Araujo, P. Malecot, P. Domingues, L.M. Silva, G. Fedak, and F. Cappello. Characterizing result errors in Internet Desktop Grids. In Euro-Par 2007, 13th International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing, Rennes, France, 2007, vol. 4641 of LNCS, pages 361-371. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Li, R. Yahyapour. Negotiation strategies for grid scheduling. In 1st International Conference on Grid and Pervasive Computing, 2006, vol. 3947 of LNCS. Springer.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    F. Monrose, P. Wyckoff, and A.D. Rubin. Distributed execution with remote audit. In The Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 1999, San Diego, California, USA. The Internet Society.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Project ASSESSGRID. http://www.assessgrid.eu.
  14. [14]
    Project HPC4U. http://www.hpc4u.org.
  15. [15]
    Project XtreemOS. http://www.xtreemos.eu.
  16. [16]
    Luis F. G. Sarmenta. Sabotage-tolerance mechanisms for volunteer computing systems. Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 18(4):561-572, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. Tserpes, D. Kyriazisa, A. Menychtasa and T. Varvarigoua. A novel mechanism for pro- visioning of high-level quality of service information in grid environments. In European Journal of Operational Research, Article in press, Corrected proof, 2007, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    XtreemOS.First draft specification of security services, project deliver- able D3.5.3.http://www.xtreemos.eu/publications/project-deliverables/d3-5-3- firstspecofsecurityservices vfinal.pdf, 2007.
  19. [19]
    E.Y. Yang, B. Matthews, A. Lakhani, Y. J égou et. al. Virtual organization management in XtreemOS: an overview. In Towards Next Generation Grids, Proc. of the CoreGRID Symposium, Rennes, France, 2007. Springer.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Zhao, V. Lo, and C. GauthierDickey. Result verification and trust-based scheduling in peer-to-peer grids. In: P2P ’05: The 5th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P’05), pages 31-38, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Excellence in Information and Communication TechnologiesBelgium
  2. 2.Babes.-Bolyai University of Cluj-NapocaRomania
  3. 3.Technische Universität BerlinGermany
  4. 4.University of LeedsUK

Personalised recommendations