A Latency-driven Availability Assessment for Multi-Tenant Service Chains

Nowadays, most telecommunication services adhere to the Service Function Chain (SFC) paradigm, where network functions are implemented via software. In particular, container virtualization is becoming a popular approach to deploy network functions and to enable resource slicing among several tenants. The resulting infrastructure is a complex system composed by a huge amount of containers implementing different SFC functionalities, along with different tenants sharing the same chain. The complexity of such a scenario lead us to evaluate two critical metrics: the steady-state availability (the probability that a system is functioning in long runs) and the latency (the time between a service request and the pertinent response). Consequently, we propose a latency-driven availability assessment for multi-tenant service chains implemented via Containerized Network Functions (CNFs). We adopt a multi-state system to model single CNFs and the queueing formalism to characterize the service latency. To efficiently compute the availability, we develop a modified version of the Multidimensional Universal Generating Function (MUGF) technique. Finally, we solve an optimization problem to minimize the SFC cost under an availability constraint. As a relevant example of SFC, we consider a containerized version of IP Multimedia Subsystem, whose parameters have been estimated through fault injection techniques and load tests

A survey on elasticity management in PaaS systems

[EN] Elasticity is a goal of cloud computing. An elastic system should manage in an autonomic way its resources, being adaptive to dynamic workloads, allocating additional resources when workload is increased and deallocating resources when workload decreases. PaaS providers should manage resources of customer applications with the aim of converting those applications into elastic services. This survey identifies the requirements that such management imposes on a PaaS provider: autonomy, scalability, adaptivity, SLA awareness, composability and upgradeability. This document delves into the variety of mechanisms that have been proposed to deal with all those requirements. Although there are multiple approaches to address those concerns, providers main goal is maximisation of profits. This compels providers to look for balancing two opposed goals: maximising quality of service and minimising costs. Because of this, there are still several aspects that deserve additional research for finding optimal adaptability strategies. Those open issues are also discussed.This work has been partially supported by EU FEDER and Spanish MINECO under research Grant TIN2012-37719-C03-01.Muñoz-Escoí, FD.; Bernabeu Aubán, JM. (2017). A survey on elasticity management in PaaS systems. Computing. 99(7):617-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-016-0507-8S617656997Ajmani S (2004) Automatic software upgrades for distributed systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USAAjmani S, Liskov B, Shrira L (2006) Modular software upgrades for distributed systems. In: 20th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), Nantes, France, pp 452–476Alhamad M, Dillon TS, Chang E (2010) Conceptual SLA framework for cloud computing. In: 4th International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), Dubai, pp 606–610Almeida S, Leitão J, Rodrigues LET (2013) ChainReaction: a causal+ consistent datastore based on chain replication. In: 8th EuroSys Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 85–98Araujo J, Matos R, Maciel PRM, Matias R (2011) Software aging issues on the Eucalyptus cloud computing infrastructure. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Anchorage, Alaska, USA, pp 1411–1416Arief LB, Speirs NA (2000) A UML tool for an automatic generation of simulation programs. In: Worshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), Ottawa, Canada, pp 71–76Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph AD, Katz RH, Konwinski A, Lee G, Patterson DA, Rabkin A, Stoica I, Zaharia M (2010) A view of cloud computing. Commun ACM 53(4):50–58Bailis P, Ghodsi A (2013) Eventual consistency today: limitations, extensions, and beyond. Commun ACM 56(5):55–63Bailis P, Ghodsi A, Hellerstein JM, Stoica I (2013) Bolt-on causal consistency. In: Intnl Conf Mgmnt Data (SIGMOD). NY, USA, New York, pp 761–772Balsamo S, Marco AD, Inverardi P, Simeoni M (2004) Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):295–310Barham P, Dragovic B, Fraser K, Hand S, Harris TL, Ho A, Neugebauer R, Pratt I, Warfield A (2003) Xen and the art of virtualization. In: 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), Bolton Landing, NY, USA, pp 164–177Bennani MN, Menascé DA (2005) Resource allocation for autonomic data centers using analytic performance models. In: 2nd Intnl Conf Auton Comput (ICAC), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 229–240Birman KP (1996) Building Secure and Reliable Network Applications. Manning Publications Co., ISBN 1-884777-29-5Bloom T (1983) Dynamic module replacement in a distributed programming system. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USABloom T, Day M (1993) Reconfiguration and module replacement in Argus: theory and practice. Softw Eng J 8(2):102–108Caballer M, Segrelles Quilis JD, Moltó G, Blanquer I (2015) A platform to deploy customized scientific virtual infrastructures on the cloud. Concurr Comput Pract E 27(16):4318–4329Calatrava A, Romero E, Moltó G, Caballer M, Alonso JM (2016) Self-managed cost-efficient virtual elastic clusters on hybrid cloud infrastructures. Future Gener Comp Syst 61:13–25Calcavecchia NM, Caprarescu BA, Nitto ED, Dubois DJ, Petcu D (2012) DEPAS: a decentralized probabilistic algorithm for auto-scaling. Computing 94(8–10):701–730Casalicchio E, Silvestri L (2013) Mechanisms for SLA provisioning in cloud-based service providers. Comput Netw 57(3):795–810Casalicchio E, Menascé DA, Aldhalaan A (2013) Autonomic resource provisioning in cloud systems with availability goals. In: ACM Cloud Autonomic Computing Conference (CAC), FL, USA, Miami, pp 1–10Chang F, Dean J, Ghemawat S, Hsieh WC, Wallach DA, Burrows M, Chandra T, Fikes A, Gruber RE (2008) Bigtable: a distributed storage system for structured data. ACM Trans Comput Syst 26(2):4Copil G, Trihinas D, Truong HL, Moldovan D, Pallis G, Dustdar S, Dikaiakos MD (2014) ADVISE—A framework for evaluating cloud service elasticity behavior. In: 12th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC), France, Paris, pp 275–290Cotroneo D, Natella R, Pietrantuono R, Russo S (2014) A survey of software aging and rejuvenation studies. ACM J Emerg Technol 10(1):8:1–8:34Coutinho EF, de Carvalho Sousa FR, Rego PAL, Gomes DG, de Souza JN (2015) Elasticity in cloud computing: a survey. Ann Telecommun 70(15):289–309Dawoud W, Takouna I, Meinel C (2011) Elastic VM for cloud resources provisioning optimization. In: 1st International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications (ACC), Kochi, India, pp 431–445de Juan-Marín R, Decker H, Armendáriz-Íñigo JE, Bernabéu-Aubán JM, Muñoz-EscoíFD (2015) Scalability approaches for causal multicast: a survey. Computing (in press)de Miguel M, Lambolais T, Hannouz M, Betgé-Brezetz S, Piekarec S (2000) UML extensions for the specification and evaluation of latency constraints in architectural models. In: Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), Ottawa, Canada, pp 83–88Demers AJ, Greene DH, Hauser C, Irish W, Larson J, Shenker S, Sturgis HE, Swinehart DC, Terry DB (1987) Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance. In: 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), Vancouver, Canada, pp 1–12Dustdar S, Guo Y, Satzger B, Truong HL (2011) Principles of elastic processes. IEEE Internet Comput 15(5):66–71Emeakaroha VC, Brandic I, Maurer M, Dustdar S (2013) Cloud resource provisioning and SLA enforcement via LoM2HiS framework. Concurr Comput Pract E 25(10):1462–1481Felter W, Ferreira A, Rajamony R, Rubio J (2015) An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and Linux containers. In: IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 171–172Fox A, Brewer EA (1999) Harvest, yield and scalable tolerant systems. In: 7th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), Rio Rico, Arizona, USA, pp 174–178Galante G, De Bona LCE (2012) A survey on cloud computing elasticity. In: 5th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), Chicago, IL, USA, pp 263–270Galante G, De Bona LCE, Mury AR, Schulze B, Righi RR (2016) An analysis of public clouds elasticity in the execution of scientific applications: a survey. J Grid Comput 14(2):193–216Gambi A, Hummer W, Truong HL, Dustdar S (2013) Testing elastic computing systems. IEEE Internet Comput 17(6):76–82Garg S, van Moorsel APA, Vaidyanathan K, Trivedi KS (1998) A methodology for detection and estimation of software aging. In: 9th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Paderborn, Germany, pp 283–292Gey F, Landuyt DV, Joosen W (2015) Middleware for customizable multi-staged dynamic upgrades of multi-tenant SaaS applications. In: 8th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), Limassol, Cyprus, pp 102–111Gilbert S, Lynch NA (2002) Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2):51–59Gong Z, Gu X, Wilkes J (2010) PRESS: PRedictive Elastic reSource Scaling for cloud systems. In: 6th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Niagara Falls, Canada, pp 9–16Grozev N, Buyya R (2014) Inter-cloud architectures and application brokering: taxonomy and survey. Softw Pract Exp 44(3):369–390Hammer M (2009) How to touch a running system. reconfiguration of stateful components. PhD thesis, Facultät für Mathematik, Informatik und Statistik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, GermanyHasan MZ, Magana E, Clemm A, Tucker L, Gudreddi SLD (2012) Integrated and autonomic cloud resource scaling. In: IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), Maui, HI, USA, pp 1327–1334Herbst NR, Kounev S, Reussner R (2013) Elasticity in cloud computing: What it is, and what it is not. In: 10th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), San Jose, CA, USA, pp 23–27Hermanns H, Herzog U, Katoen J (2002) Process algebra for performance evaluation. Theor Comput Sci 274(1–2):43–87Horn P (2001) Autonomic computing: IBM’s perspective on the state of information technology. Tech. rep. IBM PressHuebscher MC, McCann JA (2008) A survey of autonomic computing—degrees, models, and applications. ACM Comput Surv 40(3):7Hwang J, Zeng S, Wu F, Wood T (2013) A component-based performance comparison of four hypervisors. In: International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM), Ghent, Belgium, pp 269–276IBM (2006) An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. White paper, 4th edIosup A, Ostermann S, Yigitbasi N, Prodan R, Fahringer T, Epema DHJ (2011) Performance analysis of cloud computing services for many-tasks scientific computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 22(6):931–945Ivanovic D, Carro M, Hermenegildo MV (2013) A sharing-based approach to supporting adaptation in service compositions. Computing 95(6):453–492Jiang Y, Perng C, Li T, Chang RN (2011) ASAP: A self-adaptive prediction system for instant cloud resource demand provisioning. In: 11th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), Vancouver, Canada, pp 1104–1109Johnson PR, Thomas RH (1975) The maintenance of duplicate databases. RFC 677, Network Working Group, Internet Engineering Task ForceKephart JO, Chess DM (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput 36(1):41–50Kiviti A, Laor D, Costa G, Enberg P, Har’El N, Marti D, Zolotarov V (2014) OSv—Optimizing the operating system for virtual machines. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 61–72Knauth T, Fetzer C (2011) Scaling non-elastic applications using virtual machines. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Washington, DC, USA, pp 468–475Knauth T, Fetzer C (2014) DreamServer: truly on-demand cloud services. In: International Conference on Systems and Storage (SYSTOR), Haifa, Israel, pp 1–11Kramer J, Magee J (1990) The evolving philosophers problem: dynamic change management. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 16(11):1293–1306Lakshman A, Malik P (2010) Cassandra: a decentralized structured storage system. Oper Syst Rev 44(2):35–40Lang W, Shankar S, Patel JM, Kalhan A (2014) Towards multi-tenant performance SLOs. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 26(6):1447–1463Langner F, Andrzejak A (2013) Detecting software aging in a cloud computing framework by comparing development versions. In: IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM), Ghent, Belgium, pp 896–899Lazowska ED, Zahorjan J, Graham GS, Sevcik KC (1984) Quantitative system performance. Computer system analysis using queueing network models. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverLeitner P, Michlmayr A, Rosenberg F, Dustdar S (2010) Monitoring, prediction and prevention of SLA violations in composite services. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Florida, USA, Miami, pp 369–376Li W (2011) Evaluating the impacts of dynamic reconfiguration on the QoS of running systems. J Syst Softw 84(12):2123–2138Lim HC, Babu S, Chase JS, Parekh SS (2009) Automated control in cloud computing: challenges and opportunities. In: 1st ACM Workshop Automated Control Datacenters Clouds (ACDC), Barcelona, Spain, pp 13–18Liu J, Zhou J, Buyya R (2015) Software rejuvenation based fault tolerance scheme for cloud applications. In: 8th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), New York City, NY, USA, pp 1115–1118Lorido-Botran T, Miguel-Alonso J, Lozano JA (2014) A review of auto-scaling techniques for elastic applications in cloud environments. J Grid Comput 12(4):559–592Massie M, Li B, Nicholes B, Vuksan V, Alexander R, Buchbinder J, Costa F, Dean A, Josephsen D, Phaal P, Pocock D (2012) Monitoring with Ganglia. O’Reilly Media, Tracking Dynamic Host and Application Metrics at Scale. ISBN 978-1-4493-2970-9Matias R Jr, Andrzejak A, Machida F, Elias D, Trivedi KS (2014) A systematic differential analysis for fast and robust detection of software aging. In: 33rd IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). Nara, Japan, pp 311–320Medina V, García JM (2014) A survey of migration mechanisms of virtual machines. ACM Comput Surv 46(3):30Mell P, Grance T (2011) The NIST definition of cloud computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-145Menascé DA, Bennani MN (2006) Autonomic virtualized environments. In: International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems (ICAS), Silicon Valley, California, USA, p 28Menascé DA, Ngo P (2009) Understanding cloud computing: Experimentation and capacity planning. In: 35th International Computer Measurement Group Conference, Dallas, TX, USAMenascé DA, Ruan H, Gomaa H (2007) QoS management in service-oriented architectures. Perform Eval 64(7–8):646–663Miedes E, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2010) Dynamic switching of total-order broadcast protocols. In: International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 457–463Mohamed M (2014) Generic monitoring and reconfiguration for service-based applications in the cloud. PhD thesis, Université d’Evry-Val d’Essonne, FranceMohamed M, Amziani M, Belaïd D, Tata S, Melliti T (2015) An autonomic approach to manage elasticity of business processes in the cloud. Future Gener Comp Sys 50(C):49–61Mohd Yusoh ZI (2013) Composite SaaS resource management in cloud computing using evolutionary computation. PhD thesis, Sc Eng Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, AustraliaMontero RS, Moreno-Vozmediano R, Llorente IM (2011) An elasticity model for high throughput computing clusters. J Parallel Distrib Comput 71(6):750–757Morabito R, Kjällman J, Komu M (2015) Hypervisors vs. lightweight virtualization: a performance comparison. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), Tempe, AZ, USA, pp 386–393Najjar A, Serpaggi X, Gravier C, Boissier O (2014) Survey of elasticity management solutions in cloud computing. In: Mahmood Z (ed) Continued rise of the cloud: advances and trends in cloud computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–263Naskos A, Gounaris A, Sioutas S (2015) Cloud elasticity: a survey. In: 1st International Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Cloud Computing (ALGOCLOUD), Patras, Greece, pp 151–167Neamtiu I, Dumitras T (2011) Cloud software upgrades: challenges and opportunities. In: IEEE International Workshop on the Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented and Cloud-Based Systems (MESOCA), Williamsburg, VA, USA, pp 1–10Neuman BC (1994) Scale in distributed systems. In: Singhal M, Casavant TL (eds) Readings in Distributed computing systems. IEEE-CS Press, Los Alamitos, pp 463–489Padala P, Shin KG, Zhu X, Uysal M, Wang Z, Singhal S, Merchant A, Salem K (2007) Adaptive control of virtualized resources in utility computing environments. In: EuroSys Conference Lisbon, Portugal, pp 289–302Parnas DL (1994) Software aging. In: 6th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Sorrento, Italy, pp 279–287Parzen E (1960) A survey on time series analysis. Tech. rep., n. 37, Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAPascual-Miret L, González de Mendívil JR, Bernabéu-Aubán JM, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2015) Widening CAP consistency. Tech. rep., IUMTI-SIDI-2015/003, Univ. Politècnica de València, Valencia, SpainPopek GJ, Goldberg RP (1974) Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Commun ACM 17(7):412–421Potter S, Nieh J (2005) AutoPod: Unscheduled system updates with zero data loss. In: 2nd International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 367–368Rajagopalan S (2014) System support for elasticity and high availability. PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaReinecke P, Wolter K, van Moorsel APA (2010) Evaluating the adaptivity of computing systems. Perform Eval 67(8):676–693Rolia JA, Sevcik KC (1995) The method of layers. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(8):689–700Roy N, Dubey A, Gokhale AS (2011) Efficient autoscaling in the cloud using predictive models for workload forecasting. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Washington, DC, USA, pp 500–507Ruiz-Fuertes MI, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2009) Performance evaluation of a metaprotocol for database replication adaptability. In: 28th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Niagara Falls, New York, USA, pp 32–38Saito Y, Shapiro M (2005) Optimistic replication. ACM Comput Surv 37(1):42–81Seifzadeh H, Abolhassani H, Moshkenani MS (2013) A survey of dynamic software updating. J Softw Evol Process 25(5):535–568Sharma U, Shenoy PJ, Sahu S, Shaikh A (2011) A cost-aware elasticity provisioning system for the cloud. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp 559–570Shen M, Kshemkalyani AD, Hsu TY (2015) Causal consistency for geo-replicated cloud storage under partial replication. In: International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) Workshop, Hyderabad, India, pp 509–518Shen Z, Subbiah S, Gu X, Wilkes J (2011) CloudScale: elastic resource scaling for multi-tenant cloud systems. In: ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC), Cascais, Portugal, p 5Simoes R, Kamienski CA (2014) Elasticity management in private and hybrid clouds. In: 7th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Anchorage, AK, USA, pp 793–800Singh S, Chana I (2015) QoS-aware autonomic resource management in cloud computing: a systematic review. ACM Comput Surv 48(3):42:1–42:46Smith CU (1980) The prediction and evaluation of the performance of software from extended design specifications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, USASmith CU, Williams LG (2003) Software performance engineering. In: Lavagno L, Martin G, Selic B (eds) UML for real. Design of embedded real-time systems, chap 16. Springer, Berlin, pp 343–365Solarski M (2004) Dynamic upgrade of distributed software components. PhD thesis, Fakultät IV Elektronik und Informatik, Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin, GermanySoltesz S, Pötzl H, Fiuczynski ME, Bavier AC, Peterson LL (2007) Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors. In: European Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 275–287Soules CAN, Appavoo J, Hui K, Wisniewski RW, Silva DD, Ganger GR, Krieger O, Stumm M, Auslander MA, Ostrowski M, Rosenburg BS, Xenidis J (2003) System support for online reconfiguration. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference. San Antonio, Texas, USA, pp 141–154Sridharan S (2012) A performance comparison of hypervisors for cloud computing. Master Thesis (paper 269), School of Computing, University of North Florida, USAStonebraker M (1986) The case for shared nothing. IEEE Database Eng Bull 9(1):4–9Sun D, Guimarans D, Fekete A, Gramoli V, Zhu L (2015) Multi-objective optimisation of rolling upgrade allowing for failures in clouds. In: 34th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). Montreal, QC, Canada, pp 68–73Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: an introduction. The MIT Press, CambridgeToosi AN, Calheiros RN, Buyya R (2014) Interconnected cloud computing environments: challenges, taxonomy, and survey. ACM Comput Surv 47(1):7:1–7:47Vaquero González LM, Rodero-Merino L, Cáceres J, Lindner MA (2009) A break in the clouds: towards a cloud definition. Comput Commun Rev 39(1):50–55Varrette S, Guzek M, Plugaru V, Besseron X, Bouvry P (2013) HPC performance and energy-efficiency of Xen, KVM and VMware hypervisors. In: 25th International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing (SBAC-PAD). Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil, pp 89–96Vasic N, Novakovic DM, Miucin S, Kostic D, Bianchini R (2012) DejaVu: accelerating resource allocation in virtualized environments. In: 17th nternational Conference on Architectural Support for Programing Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), London, UK, pp 423–436Vaughan-Nichols SJ (2006) New approach to virtualization is a lightweight. IEEE Comput 39(11):12–14Vogels W (2009) Eventually consistent. Commun ACM 52(1):40–44Wada H, Suzuki J, Yamano Y, Oba K (2011) Evolutionary deployment optimization for service-oriented clouds. Softw Pract Exp 41(5):469–493Whitaker A, Cox RS, Shaw M, Gribble SD (2005) Rethinking the design of virtual machine monitors. IEEE Comput 38(5):57–62Wishart DMG (1969) A survey of control theory. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G 132(3):293–319Yataghene L, Amziani M, Ioualalen M, Tata S (2014) A queuing model for business processes elasticity evaluation. In: International Workshop on Advanced Information Systems for Enterprises (IWAISE), Tunis, Tunisia, pp 22–28Zawirski M, Preguiça N, Duarte S, Bieniusa A, Balegas V, Shapiro M (2015) Write fast, read in th

A survey on fault-models for QoS studies of service-oriented systems

This survey paper presents an overview of the fault-models available to the researcher who wants to parameterise system-models in order to study Quality- of-Service (QoS) properties of systems with service-oriented architecture. The concept of a system-model subsumes the whole spectrum between abstract mathematical models and testbeds based on actual implementations. Fault- models, on the other hand, are parameters to system-models. They introduce faults and disturbances into the system-model, thereby allowing the study of QoS under realistic conditions. In addition to a survey of existing fault- models, the paper also provides a discussion of available fault-classification schemes

Mathematics in Software Reliability and Quality Assurance

This monograph concerns the mathematical aspects of software reliability and quality assurance and consists of 11 technical papers in this emerging area. Included are the latest research results related to formal methods and design, automatic software testing, software verification and validation, coalgebra theory, automata theory, hybrid system and software reliability modeling and assessment

Workload Prediction for Efficient Performance Isolation and System Reliability

In large-scaled and distributed systems, like multi-tier storage systems and cloud data centers, resource sharing among workloads brings multiple benefits while introducing many performance challenges. The key to effective workload multiplexing is accurate workload prediction. This thesis focuses on how to capture the salient characteristics of the real-world workloads to develop workload prediction methods and to drive scheduling and resource allocation policies, in order to achieve efficient and in-time resource isolation among applications. For a multi-tier storage system, high-priority user work is often multiplexed with low-priority background work. This brings the challenge of how to strike a balance between maintaining the user performance and maximizing the amount of finished background work. In this thesis, we propose two resource isolation policies based on different workload prediction methods: one is a Markovian model-based and the other is a neural networks-based. These policies aim at, via workload prediction, discovering the opportune time to schedule background work with minimum impact on user performance. Trace-driven simulations verify the efficiency of the two pro- posed resource isolation policies. The Markovian model-based policy successfully schedules the background work at the appropriate periods with small impact on the user performance. The neural networks-based policy adaptively schedules user and background work, resulting in meeting both performance requirements consistently. This thesis also proposes an accurate while efficient neural networks-based pre- diction method for data center usage series, called PRACTISE. Different from the traditional neural networks for time series prediction, PRACTISE selects the most informative features from the past observations of the time series itself. Testing on a large set of usage series in production data centers illustrates the accuracy (e.g., prediction error) and efficiency (e.g., time cost) of PRACTISE. The superiority of the usage prediction also allows a proactive resource management in the highly virtualized cloud data centers. In this thesis, we analyze on the performance tickets in the cloud data centers, and propose an active sizing algorithm, named ATM, that predicts the usage workloads and re-allocates capacity to work- loads to avoid VM performance tickets. Moreover, driven by cheap prediction of usage tails, we also present TailGuard in this thesis, which dynamically clones VMs among co-located boxes, in order to efficiently reduce the performance violations of physical boxes in cloud data centers

Modelling and Quantitative Analysis of Performance vs Security Trade-offs in Computer Networks: An investigation into the modelling and discrete-event simulation analysis of performance vs security trade-offs in computer networks, based on combined metrics and stochastic activity networks (SANs)

Performance modelling and evaluation has long been considered of paramount importance to computer networks from design through development, tuning and upgrading. These networks, however, have evolved significantly since their first introduction a few decades ago. The Ubiquitous Web in particular with fast-emerging unprecedented services has become an integral part of everyday life. However, this all is coming at the cost of substantially increased security risks. Hence cybercrime is now a pervasive threat for today’s internet-dependent societies. Given the frequency and variety of attacks as well as the threat of new, more sophisticated and destructive future attacks, security has become more prevalent and mounting concern in the design and management of computer networks. Therefore equally important if not more so is security. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to security challenges. One security defence system can only help to battle against a certain class of security threats. For overall security, a holistic approach including both reactive and proactive security measures is commonly suggested. As such, network security may have to combine multiple layers of defence at the edge and in the network and in its constituent individual nodes. Performance and security, however, are inextricably intertwined as security measures require considerable amounts of computational resources to execute. Moreover, in the absence of appropriate security measures, frequent security failures are likely to occur, which may catastrophically affect network performance, not to mention serious data breaches among many other security related risks. In this thesis, we study optimisation problems for the trade-offs between performance and security as they exist between performance and dependability. While performance metrics are widely studied and well-established, those of security are rarely defined in a strict mathematical sense. We therefore aim to conceptualise and formulate security by analogy with dependability so that, like performance, it can be modelled and quantified. Having employed a stochastic modelling formalism, we propose a new model for a single node of a generic computer network that is subject to various security threats. We believe this nodal model captures both performance and security aspects of a computer node more realistically, in particular the intertwinements between them. We adopt a simulation-based modelling approach in order to identify, on the basis of combined metrics, optimal trade-offs between performance and security and facilitate more sophisticated trade-off optimisation studies in the field. We realise that system parameters can be found that optimise these abstract combined metrics, while they are optimal neither for performance nor for security individually. Based on the proposed simulation modelling framework, credible numerical experiments are carried out, indicating the scope for further work extensions for a systematic performance vs security tuning of computer networks

A Game-Theoretic Approach to Strategic Resource Allocation Mechanisms in Edge and Fog Computing

With the rapid growth of Internet of Things (IoT), cloud-centric application management raises questions related to quality of service for real-time applications. Fog and edge computing (FEC) provide a complement to the cloud by filling the gap between cloud and IoT. Resource management on multiple resources from distributed and administrative FEC nodes is a key challenge to ensure the quality of end-user’s experience. To improve resource utilisation and system performance, researchers have been proposed many fair allocation mechanisms for resource management. Dominant Resource Fairness (DRF), a resource allocation policy for multiple resource types, meets most of the required fair allocation characteristics. However, DRF is suitable for centralised resource allocation without considering the effects (or feedbacks) of large-scale distributed environments like multi-controller software defined networking (SDN). Nash bargaining from micro-economic theory or competitive equilibrium equal incomes (CEEI) are well suited to solving dynamic optimisation problems proposing to ‘proportionately’ share resources among distributed participants. Although CEEI’s decentralised policy guarantees load balancing for performance isolation, they are not faultproof for computation offloading. The thesis aims to propose a hybrid and fair allocation mechanism for rejuvenation of decentralised SDN controller deployment. We apply multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) with robustness against adversarial controllers to enable efficient priority scheduling for FEC. Motivated by software cybernetics and homeostasis, weighted DRF is generalised by applying the principles of feedback (positive or/and negative network effects) in reverse game theory (GT) to design hybrid scheduling schemes for joint multi-resource and multitask offloading/forwarding in FEC environments. In the first piece of study, monotonic scheduling for joint offloading at the federated edge is addressed by proposing truthful mechanism (algorithmic) to neutralise harmful negative and positive distributive bargain externalities respectively. The IP-DRF scheme is a MARL approach applying partition form game (PFG) to guarantee second-best Pareto optimality viii | P a g e (SBPO) in allocation of multi-resources from deterministic policy in both population and resource non-monotonicity settings. In the second study, we propose DFog-DRF scheme to address truthful fog scheduling with bottleneck fairness in fault-probable wireless hierarchical networks by applying constrained coalition formation (CCF) games to implement MARL. The multi-objective optimisation problem for fog throughput maximisation is solved via a constraint dimensionality reduction methodology using fairness constraints for efficient gateway and low-level controller’s placement. For evaluation, we develop an agent-based framework to implement fair allocation policies in distributed data centre environments. In empirical results, the deterministic policy of IP-DRF scheme provides SBPO and reduces the average execution and turnaround time by 19% and 11.52% as compared to the Nash bargaining or CEEI deterministic policy for 57,445 cloudlets in population non-monotonic settings. The processing cost of tasks shows significant improvement (6.89% and 9.03% for fixed and variable pricing) for the resource non-monotonic setting - using 38,000 cloudlets. The DFog-DRF scheme when benchmarked against asset fair (MIP) policy shows superior performance (less than 1% in time complexity) for up to 30 FEC nodes. Furthermore, empirical results using 210 mobiles and 420 applications prove the efficacy of our hybrid scheduling scheme for hierarchical clustering considering latency and network usage for throughput maximisation.Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi (Tetfund, Nigeria