• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Resilient systems - predicatbility ane evolution
 

Resilient systems - predicatbility ane evolution

on

  • 197 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
197
Views on SlideShare
197
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 4. For example, organisms living in communities that are in isolation from one another may be organized differently than the same type of organism living in a large continuous population, thus the community-level structure is influenced by population-level interactions
  • robustness is the ability of a computer system to cope with errors during execution or the ability of an algorithm to continue to operate despite abnormalities in input, calculations, etc.
  • robustness is the ability of a computer system to cope with errors during execution or the ability of an algorithm to continue to operate despite abnormalities in input, calculations, etc.
  • Every open system interacts with its environment and, hence, is part of a larger system.Carried to the extreme, this type of reasoning leads to the “Gaia hypothesis”, which claims that the world is a single giant organism.
  • The main problem with this software architecture was the existence of tight coupling among some components that reside in different layers.
  • Analyze impacts of the solutions to the subcharacteristics (using AHP

Resilient systems - predicatbility ane evolution Resilient systems - predicatbility ane evolution Presentation Transcript

  • Resilient Systems - Predictability and Evolution Ivica Crnkovic Mälardalen University, Sweden www.idt.mdh.se/~icc ivica.crnkovic@mdh.se
  • What is resilience?• In ecology1 – the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly• In System Engineering – Resilience is the ability of organizational, hardware and software systems to mitigate the severity and likelihood of failures or losses, to adapt to changing conditions, and to respond appropriately after the fact.1Resilience (ecology - Wikipedia)1/25/2013 Serene 2011 2
  • Characteristics of resilient systemsCritical aspects of resilience: System Resistance1. Latitude: the maximum amount a state system can be changed before losing its ability to recover. Robustness2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how “resistant” it is to being changed.3. Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or “threshold.” Environment Latitude4. Panarchy: the degree to which a certain hierarchical level of an ecosystem is influenced by other Precariousness levels.1/25/2013 Serene 2011 4
  • Resilience vs. dependability vs. robustness?• Dependability Ability of a system to Availability deliver service that can justifiably be Reliability trusted Safety Confidentiality Attributes Integrity (Ability of a system to avoid failures Maintainability that are more frequent or more severe than is acceptable to user(s) Faults Dependability Threats Errors• Survivability is the ability to remain Failures alive or continue to exist.• Robustness is the persistence of a system’s characteristic behavior under Fault Prevention perturbations or conditions of Fault Tolerance uncertainty. Means Fault Removal Fault Forecasting• Resilience is the persistence of the avoidance of failures that are unexpectedly frequent or severe, when facing change [Laprie]1/25/2013 Serene 2011 5
  • Robustness vs. Resilience1/25/2013 Serene 2011 6
  • Resilience vs. dependability vs. robustness? dependable (robust&resistent) systems” “Resilient systems” states • Highly controlled • A broad spectrum of possible equilibrium state • Operates in a narrow band • Not necessary all states are predicted • Predefined states (“modes”) • Adaptive and evolving systems • Top-down design • impact of the system on the environment • Challenge: predict all states • Challenge: caused by the environment • Adaptation • Optimal performance in different states • Minimize unwanted impact on the environment1/25/2013 Serene 2011 7
  • Do we care about impact on the environment?ABB vision: “Power and productivity for a better world” “….., we help our customers to use electrical power efficiently, to increase industrial productivity and to lower environmental impact in a sustainable way.”1/25/2013 Serene 2011 8
  • Resilient system development challenges• Resilience is an extra-functional (non-functional) property• A part of the design: – System adaptability – System evolvability – Impact on external environment • (direct & indirect) • (short & long term)1/25/2013 Serene 2011 10
  • Development process – top-down vs. Bottom-up• Modern, sustainable and resilient systems: – Complex, distributed, highly dynamic, highly adaptive – Adjustable to the changing environment and to the users• Top-down principle is not enough! – It would be a problem with evolution and flexibility• Late compositions, reconfigurations, on-line verifications, on-line validations1/25/2013 Serene 2011 11
  • Extended development process1JOSEPH FIKSEL Designing Resilient, Sustainable Systems , Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5330-53391/25/2013 Serene 2011 12
  • How can we assess the resilience?
  • Resilience property model is refined to Resilience subcharacteristics 1 1..* 1 is refined to 1..* measured by measuring attributes 1..* metrics 1 1 reason about 1..* QoS Questions: which are subcharacteristics? which measuring attributes? How to design for resilience? How to analyze resilience?1/25/2013 22
  • Analysis Process Elicit Architectural Concerns Stakeholders’ concerns (subcharacteristics) Potential architecturalChange stimuli requirements Analyze Implication of Propose architectural change stimuli solutions Analyze Implication of change stimuli
  • Example: Software Evolvability Model • Literature survey and analysis of the literature • Industrial case studies -is refined to Evolvability Subcharacteristics 1 1..* 1 -is refined to • Evolvability subcharacteristics 1..* -is measured by • Analyzability Measuring Attributes Metrics • Architectural Integrity 1 1..* • Changeability 1 -reason about QoS • Portability 1..* • Extensibility • Testability • Domain-specific attributesHongyu Pei Breivold, Ivica Crnkovic, Peter Eriksson, Analyzing Software Evolvability, 32nd IEEE International computer Software and ApplicationsConference (COMPSAC), 2008 1/25/2013 Serene 2011 24
  • Case Study: ABB Robotic Control System PC Applications Man Machine Interactions Controller Control Interfaces and Language Resources I/O File System Safety Base system Support services OS & HW abstraction Device Drivers A conceptual view of the software architecture1/25/2013 Serene 2011 27
  • Architectural concerns• Analyzability• Architectural Integrity• Changeability• Portability• Extensibility• Testability• Domain-specific attributes – Performance, real-time1/25/2013 Serene 2011 28
  • Phase 1: Change Stimuli and Architectural Requirements Change Stimuli • Time-to-market requirements • Increased ease and flexibility of distributed development of diverse application variants. Requirements Subcharacteristics R1. Transform the monolithic architecture to Analyzability modular architecture. Changeability R2. Reduced architecture complexity. R3. Enable distributed development of Extensibility extensions with minimum dependency. R4. Portability. Portability R5. Impact on product development process. Testability R6. Minimized software code size and runtime Domain-specific footprint. Attribute R1, R2, R3 prioritized1/25/2013 Serene 2011 29
  • Phase 2: Architectural analysis• Extract architectural constructs related to the respective identified issues• Identify refactoring components for each identified issueRefactoring components – dynamic component biding1/25/2013 Serene 2011 30
  • Phase 3: finalize the analysis Example: Implications of the IPC component refactoring on evolvability subcharacteristics (+ positive impact, - negative impact) Subcharacteristics IPC Component Refactoring Analyzability – due to less possibility of static analysis since definitions are defined dynamically Architectural Integrity + due to documentation of specific requirements, architectural solutions and consequences Changeability + due to the dynamism which makes it easier to introduce and deploy new slots Portability + due to improved abstraction of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for IPC Extensibility + due to encapsulation of IPC facilities and dynamic deployment Testability No impact Domain-specific + resource limitation issue is handled through dynamic IPC attribute connection – due to introduced dynamism, the system performance could be slightly reduced1/25/2013 Serene 2011 31
  • Quantitative Architecture Evolvability Analysis Method Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for comparison of choices Phase 1: Analyze the implications of change stimuli on Phase 3: Finalize the evaluation software architecture Step 3.1: Analyze and Step 1.1: Elicit stakeholders’ Step 1.2: Extract stakeholders’ present evaluation results views on evolvability prioritization and preferences of subcharacteristics evolvability subcharacteristics Phase 2: Analyze and prepare the software architecture to accommodate change stimuli and potential future changes Step 2.2: Assess candidate Step 2.1: Identify candidate architectural solutions’ impacts on architectural solutions evolvability subcharacteristics1/25/2013 Serene 2011 32
  • Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)[mij] nxn matrics – comparison elements (subcharacteristics)mij – comparison values between two elements (1 … 9/1)(results – binary relations between the elements)Calculation and value normalization -> normalized significance of the values Wi(W1+W2+… Wn = 1)
  • Case study: Ericsson• mobile network architecture with respect to the evolvability of a logical node at Ericsson.• Logical Node: – handle control signaling for and keep track of user equipment such as mobiles using a certain type of radio access. Application level In-Service Software Upgrade (ISSU) Control System Transmission System Platform level Middleware OS1/25/2013 Serene 2011 34
  • Phase 1: requirements identification Requirements Subcharacteristics R1. The ISSU solution should be easy to understand for the Analyzability development organization. R2. Many kinds of application changes shall be possible Changeability without special upgrade code, e.g., backward compatible interfaces. R3. Enable introduction of ISSU solution without limitations on Extensibility extending existing features or adding new ones. R4. Enable change of operating system or hardware. Portability R5. Enable the ease to test and debug parts of the system Testability individually, and extract test data from the system. R6. The ISSU total time, capacity impact during ISSU and Capacity normal execution should be within specified values. R7. Critical components need to have redundancy during Availability ISSU. R8. The impact of software or hardware failure during upgrade should be limited.1/25/2013 Serene 2011 35
  • Preferences of evolvability subcharacteristics (1)1/25/2013 Serene 2011 36
  • Preferences of evolvability subcharacteristics (2) CR < 0.1 – the consistent selections between stakeholders1/25/2013 Serene 2011 37
  • Phase 2: provide alternative architectural solutions Select alternative:1/25/2013 Serene 2011 38
  • Summary - Questions• What is the importance of resilience?• How to include resilience aspects in the development process? – In certification? – In real-time systems? – Component-based approach? – Model-driven approach?• How to verify resilient systems? – Can we test all possible scenarios?• Adaptability – Where to implement the adaptability? • Source code level? • Architectural level?1/25/2013 Serene 2011 39
  • 1/25/2013 Serene 2011 40