DOCSLIB.ORG

A Unified Model of Dependability: Capturing Dependability in Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Unified Model of Dependability: Capturing Dependability in Context focuspersistent software attributes A Unified Model of Dependability: Capturing Dependability in Context Victor Basili, University of Maryland and Fraunhofer Center for Experimental Software Engineering Paolo Donzelli and Sima Asgari, University of Maryland n contemporary societies, individuals and organizations increasingly depend on services delivered by sophisticated software-intensive sys- tems to achieve personal and business goals. So, a system must have I engineered and guaranteed dependability, regardless of continuous, rapid, and unpredictable technological and context changes. The International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 10.4 (www.dependability.org) defines dependability as “the trustworthiness of a computing system which allows reliance different things to different people; you often to be justifiably placed on the services it deliv- see different definitions given for the same at- ers.” “Reliance” is contextually subjective and tributes.1–3 Put another way, dependability as- depends on the particular stakeholders’ needs. sumes a precise meaning only when applied to Depending on the circumstances, different a specific context: the system and the stake- stakeholders will focus on different systems at- holders’ goals it must support. So, achieving tributes, such as availability, performance, and maintaining dependability in a quickly real-time response, and ability to avoid cata- changing context requires you to firmly un- strophic failures and resist adverse conditions, derstand its meaning. as well as different levels of adherence to such From this perspective, we introduce our attributes. Additionally, an attribute can mean Unified Model of Dependability, a modeling language for discussing and reasoning about dependability. By providing a structured Dependability is a key systems property that must be guaranteed framework for eliciting and organizing de- regardless of continuous, rapid, and unpredictable technological and pendability needs, UMD helps stakeholders build dependability models that clearly iden- context changes. Our Unified Model of Dependability lets you reason tify the measurable, implementable properties about dependability and turn it into clearly defined, implementable individual systems need to be dependable for system properties. their users. 0740-7459/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE Published by the IEEE Computer Society IEEE SOFTWARE 19 WHY READ THIS ARTICLE? Imagine for a moment that you have a complex system ticle, Victor Basili, Paolo Donzelli, and Sima Asgari de- with numerous properties that must all be maintained within scribe their Unified Model of Dependability approach to certain limits during the system’s operation. When a spe- capturing and analyzing the impacts of diverse events cific negative event such as a denial-of-service attack oc- on critical system properties. Their UMD method demon- curs, what will its impact be on various properties such as strates the recurring theme that you can make -ilities more system safety, availability, security, and other “-ilities”? enduring and survivable over time by capturing and sup- For most systems, such questions can be surprisingly porting a wider range of context information about those difficult to analyze due to the diverse ways in which a sin- properties. —Terry Bollinger, Jeffrey Voas, and gle event can affect different system properties. In this ar- Maarten Boasson, guest editors ■ If the online application is an e-commerce EventIssue Scope system, a delayed response could discour- Denial-of-service Response time age potential customers from buying (the attack > 10 seconds Query service Cause Concern service is unavailable), so this misbehavior represents a lack of availability. ■ The response delay could occur because of Figure 1. Unified Model an internal fault but also because of an ex- of Dependability UMD ternal event—for example, an unintentional concepts and their Traditional dependability modeling usually external event, such as a hardware fault, or relationships with an develops in a top-down fashion. For example, an intentional one, such as a denial-of-serv- online application let’s focus on a specific dependability attribute, ice attack. In this case, the performance fail- system example. performance, and assume we want to define ure becomes a lack of survivability (unin- what performance means for a specific service tentional) or of security (intentional). of a given system (for example, an online ap- plication’s query service). First, we need to de- These simple examples show how you could fine performance—for example, “performance interpret the same failure differently. Given this is a static or dynamic system’s capability (re- one-to-many relationship between failures and sponse time, throughput) defined in terms of attributes, you can more efficiently and intu- an acceptable range.”4 Then, on the basis of itively model dependability by assuming failure this definition, we can specify the desired be- as a starting point (that is, think bottom-up havior. So, our online application’s query serv- and not only top-down). As Brian Randall ice could have this performance requirement: points out, there’s a clear need to go beyond “The response time must be no greater than 10 terminology (that is, attributes definitions) and seconds.” In this way, we’ve obtained a model focus on relevant concepts (such as failure).5 of the system’s performance starting from a UMD builds on this need. We designed it to generic attribute definition. This simple model focus on a dependability issue (that is, an un- defines what we expect from the system: When dependable behavior, such as a failure) to help the query service responds in more than 10 sec- stakeholders build dependability models of in- onds, we can say there’s a performance failure, dividual systems. UMD (see Figure 1) lets or a lack of performance. However, the same stakeholders model dependability by defining failure could also represent a lack of other— an actual issue that shouldn’t affect the system perhaps even more relevant for the stakehold- or a service (scope) along with a possible re- ers—system properties. For example, sponsible external event that might cause it. ■ If the online application supports an emer- Supporting elicitation gency response operator, a delayed re- We provide stakeholder guidance by incor- sponse could result in a dangerous situa- porating into UMD the models, definitions, tion, so failure would be also a hazard, and classifications adopted in the literature to representing a lack of safety. discuss these concepts. For example (see Figure 20 IEEE SOFTWARE www.computer.org/software Figure 2. Stakeholder Issue guidance for specifying FAILURE issues. Characterization: 2), we could categorize issues into the (not ex- Type clusive) concepts of failures and hazards to • Accuracy • Response time help stakeholders identify potential system • And so on ... misbehaviors. Availability impact We can further refine these concepts by in- • Stopping troducing subclassifications for both failures • Nonstopping and hazards—for example, by classifying them HAZARD by type or other characteristics (such as failure Characterization: availability impact in Figure 2). Depending on Type the specific needs, you could adopt different • User hazard standards and classifications, for example, • Environment hazard • And so on ... MIL-STD-8826 for hazards and ISO/IEC 132367 for failures. Similarly, you could introduce ad hoc definitions and classifications for event and scope. In this way, UMD guides stakeholders dur- work’s lower to upper levels. ing the elicitation process. Specifically, stake- As Figure 3 shows, you can view UMD as an holders can use items already available or tai- experience base that supports stakeholders in lor, expand, and modify them according to building a specific system’s dependability model. their specific needs. For example, stakehold- The knowledge embedded in the UMD experi- ers can ence base can be customized and provides guid- ■ Use the definitions of failure types already ance while eliciting specific context needs. present The new knowledge acquired while build- ■ Use the same failure types but provide dif- ing the system dependability model can be an- ferent definitions alyzed and packaged for reuse in UMD. ■ Introduce more specific failure types—for example, response time rather than Measuring dependability performance UMD lets stakeholders specify the issues they don’t want to occur. However, this doesn’t UMD’s bottom-up nature lets stakeholders suffice; we need an operational definition of take advantage of existing dependability dependability. For example, Jean-Claude La- knowledge (models and classifications). So, prie says, “The extent to which a system pos- Figure 3. The updating the UMD framework consists of sesses the attributes of dependability should be process from version interpreted in a relative, probabilistic sense, due 11.23 to version 11.25, ■ Invariant concepts: These are stable for to the unavoidable occurrence of failures.”8 showing how to add a every UMD application (issue, scope, and UMD provides measurement models via the new column in the event). Bank table. ■ Semi-invariant concepts: These are the structure of the concepts’ characterization (for example, mapping issue to failure, Specific-system hazard, or both). dependability model ■ Customizable concepts: These are the characterizations (for example, classes of Customize Extract new failures, hazards, events, and so on). They framework to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Balancing Dependability Quality Attributes Relationships for Increased Embedded Systems Dependability
    Master Thesis Software Engineering Thesis no: MSE-2009:17 September 2009 Balancing Dependability Quality Attributes Relationships for Increased Embedded Systems Dependability Saleh Al-Daajeh Supervisor: Professor Mikael Svahnberg School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology Box 520 SE – 372 25 Ronneby Sweden This thesis is submitted to the School of Engineering at Blekinge Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Software Engineering. The thesis is equivalent to 2 x 20 weeks of full time studies. Contact Information: Author: Saleh Al-Daajeh E-mail: [email protected] University advisor: Prof. Miakel Svahnberg School of Engineering Internet : www.bth.se/tek Blekinge Institute of Technology Phone : +46 457 385 000 Box 520 Fax : +46 457 271 25 SE – 372 25 Ronneby Sweden II Abstract Embedded systems are used in many critical applications of our daily life. The increased complexity of embedded systems and the tightened safety regulations posed on them and the scope of the environment in which they operate are driving the need for more dependable embedded systems. Therefore, achieving a high level of dependability to embedded systems is an ultimate goal. In order to achieve this goal we are in need of understanding the interrelationships between the different dependability quality attributes and other embedded systems’ quality attributes. This research study provides indicators of the relationship between the dependability quality attributes and other quality attributes for embedded systems by identify- ing the impact of architectural tactics as the candidate solutions to construct dependable embedded systems. III Acknowledgment I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reasoning Framework for Dependability in Software Architectures Tacksoo Im Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 12-2010 A Reasoning Framework for Dependability in Software Architectures Tacksoo Im Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Im, Tacksoo, "A Reasoning Framework for Dependability in Software Architectures" (2010). All Dissertations. 618. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/618 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Reasoning Framework for Dependability in Software Architectures A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Computer Science by Tacksoo Im August 2010 Accepted by: Dr. John D. McGregor, Committee Chair Dr. Harold C. Grossman Dr. Jason O. Hallstrom Dr. Pradip K. Srimani Abstract The degree to which a software system possesses specified levels of software quality at- tributes, such as performance and modifiability, often have more influence on the success and failure of those systems than the functional requirements. One method of improving the level of a software quality that a product possesses is to reason about the structure of the software architecture in terms of how well the structure supports the quality. This is accomplished by reasoning through software quality attribute scenarios while designing the software architecture of the system. As society relies more heavily on software systems, the dependability of those systems be- comes critical.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Concepts of Dependability
    Fundamental Concepts of Dependability Algirdas Avizˇ ienis Jean-Claude Laprie Brian Randell UCLA Computer Science Dept. LAAS-CNRS Dept. of Computing Science Univ. of California, Los Angeles Toulouse Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne USA France U.K. UCLA CSD Report no. 010028 LAAS Report no. 01-145 Newcastle University Report no. CS-TR-739 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NOTICE This report has been submitted for publication. It has been issued as a research report for early peer distribution. Abstract Dependability is the system property that integrates such attributes as reliability, availability, safety, security, survivability, maintainability. The aim of the presentation is to summarize the fundamental concepts of dependability. After a historical perspective, definitions of dependability are given. A structured view of dependability follows, according to a) the threats, i.e., faults, errors and failures, b) the attributes, and c) the means for dependability, that are fault prevention, fault tolerance, fault removal and fault forecasting. he protection and survival of complex information systems that are embedded in the infrastructure supporting advanced society has become a national and world-wide concern of the 1 Thighest priority . Increasingly, individuals and organizations are developing or procuring sophisticated computing systems on whose services they need to place great reliance — whether to service a set of cash dispensers, control a satellite constellation, an airplane, a nuclear plant, or a radiation therapy device, or to maintain the confidentiality of a sensitive data base. In differing circumstances, the focus will be on differing properties of such services — e.g., on the average real-time response achieved, the likelihood of producing the required results, the ability to avoid failures that could be catastrophic to the system's environment, or the degree to which deliberate intrusions can be prevented.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependability Assessment of Software- Based Systems: State of the Art
    Dependability Assessment of Software- based Systems: State of the Art Bev Littlewood Centre for Software Reliability, City University, London [email protected] You can pick up a copy of my presentation here, if you have a lap-top ICSE2005, St Louis, May 2005 - slide 1 Do you remember 10-9 and all that? • Twenty years ago: much controversy about need for 10-9 probability of failure per hour for flight control software – could you achieve it? could you measure it? – have things changed since then? ICSE2005, St Louis, May 2005 - slide 2 Issues I want to address in this talk • Why is dependability assessment still an important problem? (why haven’t we cracked it by now?) • What is the present position? (what can we do now?) • Where do we go from here? ICSE2005, St Louis, May 2005 - slide 3 Why do we need to assess reliability? Because all software needs to be sufficiently reliable • This is obvious for some applications - e.g. safety-critical ones where failures can result in loss of life • But it’s also true for more ‘ordinary’ applications – e.g. commercial applications such as banking - the new Basel II accords impose risk assessment obligations on banks, and these include IT risks – e.g. what is the cost of failures, world-wide, in MS products such as Office? • Gloomy personal view: where it’s obvious we should do it (e.g. safety) it’s (sometimes) too difficult; where we can do it, we don’t… ICSE2005, St Louis, May 2005 - slide 4 What reliability levels are required? • Most quantitative requirements are from safety-critical systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Reliability and Dependability: a Roadmap Bev Littlewood & Lorenzo Strigini
    Software Reliability and Dependability: a Roadmap Bev Littlewood & Lorenzo Strigini Key Research Pointers Shifting the focus from software reliability to user-centred measures of dependability in complete software-based systems. Influencing design practice to facilitate dependability assessment. Propagating awareness of dependability issues and the use of existing, useful methods. Injecting some rigour in the use of process-related evidence for dependability assessment. Better understanding issues of diversity and variation as drivers of dependability. The Authors Bev Littlewood is founder-Director of the Centre for Software Reliability, and Professor of Software Engineering at City University, London. Prof Littlewood has worked for many years on problems associated with the modelling and evaluation of the dependability of software-based systems; he has published many papers in international journals and conference proceedings and has edited several books. Much of this work has been carried out in collaborative projects, including the successful EC-funded projects SHIP, PDCS, PDCS2, DeVa. He has been employed as a consultant to industrial companies in France, Germany, Italy, the USA and the UK. He is a member of the UK Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, of IFIPWorking Group 10.4 on Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerance, and of the BCS Safety-Critical Systems Task Force. He is on the editorial boards of several international scientific journals. 175 Lorenzo Strigini is Professor of Systems Engineering in the Centre for Software Reliability at City University, London, which he joined in 1995. In 1985-1995 he was a researcher with the Institute for Information Processing of the National Research Council of Italy (IEI-CNR), Pisa, Italy, and spent several periods as a research visitor with the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Bell Communication Research laboratories in Morristown, New Jersey.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Systems
    Critical Systems ©Ian Sommerville 2004 Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 3 Slide 1 Objectives ● To explain what is meant by a critical system where system failure can have severe human or economic consequence. ● To explain four dimensions of dependability - availability, reliability, safety and security. ● To explain that, to achieve dependability, you need to avoid mistakes, detect and remove errors and limit damage caused by failure. ©Ian Sommerville 2004 Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 3 Slide 2 Topics covered ● A simple safety-critical system ● System dependability ● Availability and reliability ● Safety ● Security ©Ian Sommerville 2004 Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 3 Slide 3 Critical Systems ● Safety-critical systems • Failure results in loss of life, injury or damage to the environment; • Chemical plant protection system; ● Mission-critical systems • Failure results in failure of some goal-directed activity; • Spacecraft navigation system; ● Business-critical systems • Failure results in high economic losses; • Customer accounting system in a bank; ©Ian Sommerville 2004 Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 3 Slide 4 System dependability ● For critical systems, it is usually the case that the most important system property is the dependability of the system. ● The dependability of a system reflects the user’s degree of trust in that system. It reflects the extent of the user’s confidence that it will operate as users expect and that it will not ‘fail’ in normal use. ● Usefulness and trustworthiness are not the same thing. A system does not have to be trusted to be useful. ©Ian Sommerville 2004 Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 3 Slide 5 Importance of dependability ● Systems that are not dependable and are unreliable, unsafe or insecure may be rejected by their users.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Framework for Eliciting and Modeling System Dependability Requirements: Experience from the NASA High Dependability Computing Project
    The Journal of Systems and Software 79 (2006) 107–119 www.elsevier.com/locate/jss A practical framework for eliciting and modeling system dependability requirements: Experience from the NASA high dependability computing project Paolo Donzelli a,*, Victor Basili a,b a Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA b Fraunhofer Center for Experimental Software Engineering, College Park, MD 20742, USA Received 9 December 2004; received in revised form 21 March 2005; accepted 21 March 2005 Available online 29 April 2005 Abstract The dependability of a system is contextually subjective and reflects the particular stakeholderÕs needs. In different circumstances, the focus will be on different system properties, e.g., availability, real-time response, ability to avoid catastrophic failures, and pre- vention of deliberate intrusions, as well as different levels of adherence to such properties. Close involvement from stakeholders is thus crucial during the elicitation and definition of dependability requirements. In this paper, we suggest a practical framework for eliciting and modeling dependability requirements devised to support and improve stakeholdersÕ participation. The framework is designed around a basic modeling language that analysts and stakeholders can adopt as a common tool for discussing dependability, and adapt for precise (possibly measurable) requirements. An air traffic control system, adopted as testbed within the NASA High Dependability Computing Project, is used as a case study. Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: System dependability; Requirements elicitation; Non-functional requirements 1. Introduction absence of failures (with higher costs, longer time to market and slower innovations) (Knight, 2002; Little- Individuals and organizations increasingly use wood and Stringini, 2000), everyday software (mobile sophisticated software systems from which they demand phones, PDAs, etc.) must provide cost effective service great reliance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Essay on Software Testing
    1 A Brief Essay on Software Testing Antonia Bertolino, Eda Marchetti Abstract— Testing is an important and critical part of the software development process, on which the quality and reliability of the delivered product strictly depend. Testing is not limited to the detection of “bugs” in the software, but also increases confidence in its proper functioning and assists with the evaluation of functional and nonfunctional properties. Testing related activities encompass the entire development process and may consume a large part of the effort required for producing software. In this chapter we provide a comprehensive overview of software testing, from its definition to its organization, from test levels to test techniques, from test execution to the analysis of test cases effectiveness. Emphasis is more on breadth than depth: due to the vastness of the topic, in the attempt to be all-embracing, for each covered subject we can only provide a brief description and references useful for further reading. Index Terms — D.2.4 Software/Program Verification, D.2.5 Testing and Debugging. —————————— u —————————— 1. INTRODUCTION esting is a crucial part of the software life cycle, and related issues, we can only briefly expand on each argu- T recent trends in software engineering evidence the ment, however plenty of references are also provided importance of this activity all along the development throughout for further reading. The remainder of the chap- process. Testing activities have to start already at the re- ter is organized as follows: we present some basic concepts quirements specification stage, with ahead planning of test in Section 2, and the different types of test (static and dy- strategies and procedures, and propagate down, with deri- namic) with the objectives characterizing the testing activity vation and refinement of test cases, all along the various in Section 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependability Analysis of a Safety Critical System: the LHC Beam Dumping System at CERN
    In Supremae Dignitatis Universita` di Pisa · FACOLTA` DI INGEGNERIA Dipartimento Di Sistemi Elettrici ed Automazione Dependability Analysis of a Safety Critical System: The LHC Beam Dumping System at CERN Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in Automatica, Robotica e Bioingegneria CERN-THESIS-2006-054 21/04/2006 Relatore: Candidato: Prof. Ing. Ing. ALDO BALESTRINO ROBERTO FILIPPINI Co-relatore: Dr. Ir. JAN UYTHOVEN Anno Accademico 2005-2006 Abstract This thesis presents the dependability study of the Beam Dumping System of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the high energy particle accelerator to be commissioned at CERN in summer 2007. There are two identical, independent LHC Beam Dumping Systems (LBDS), one per LHC beam, each consisting of a series of magnets that extract the particle beam from the LHC ring into the extraction line leading to the absorbing block. The consequences of a failure within the LBDS can be very severe. This risk is reduced by applying redundancy to the design of the most critical components and on-line surveillance that, in case of a detected failure, issues a safe operation abort, called false beam dump. The system has been studied applying Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and reliability prediction. The system failure processes have been represented with a state transition diagram, governed by a Markov regener- ative stochastic process, and analysed for different operational scenarios for one year of operation. The analysis of the system results in a safety level ranked SIL4 in the IEC 61508 standard and 4 ( 2) expected false beam dumps generated ± per LBDS. These results will be validated through a three months reliability run.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Reliability of Software Testing Adequacy Criteria and Reference Test Systems
    Empirical Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Reliability of Software Testing Adequacy Criteria and Reference Test Systems Mark Jason Hadley PhD University of York Department of Computer Science September 2013 2 Abstract This PhD Thesis reports the results of experiments conducted to investigate the effectiveness and reliability of ‘adequacy criteria’ - criteria used by testers to determine when to stop testing. The research reported here is concerned with the empirical determination of the effectiveness and reliability of both tests sets that satisfy major general structural code coverage criteria and test sets crafted by experts for testing specific applications. We use automated test data generation and subset extraction techniques to generate multiple tests sets satisfying widely used coverage criteria (statement, branch and MC/DC coverage). The results show that confidence in the reliability of such criteria is misplaced. We also consider the fault-finding capabilities of three test suites created by the international community to serve to assure implementations of the Data Encryption Standard (a block cipher). We do this by means of mutation analysis. The results show that not all sets are mutation adequate but the test suites are generally highly effective. The block cipher implementations are also seen to be highly ‘testable’ (i.e. they do not mask faults). 3 Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 3 Table of Tables ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dependability in Cloud Computing
    FACOLTA` DI SCIENZE MATEMATICHE,FISICHE E NATURALI DIPARTIMENTO DI INFORMATICA DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN INFORMATICA SCUOLA DI DOTTORATO IN INFORMATICA, XXVI CICLO Dependability in Cloud Computing TESI DI DOTTORATO DI RICERCA DI Ravi Jhawar RELATORE Prof. Vincenzo Piuri CORRELATORE Prof. Pierangela Samarati DIRETTORE DELLA SCUOLA DI DOTTORATO Prof. Ernesto Damiani Anno Accademico 2012/13 ii Abstract The technological advances and success of Service-Oriented Architectures and the Cloud computing paradigm have produced a revolution in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT). Today, a wide range of services are provisioned to the users in a flexible and cost-effective manner, thanks to the encapsulation of several technologies with modern business models. These services not only offer high-level software functionalities such as social networks or e-commerce but also middleware tools that simplify application development and low-level data storage, processing, and networking resources. Hence, with the advent of the Cloud computing paradigm, today's ICT allows users to completely outsource their IT infrastructure and benefit significantly from the economies of scale. At the same time, with the widespread use of ICT, the amount of data being generated, stored and processed by private companies, public organizations and individuals is rapidly increasing. The in-house management of data and applications is proving to be highly cost intensive and Cloud computing is becoming the destination of choice for increasing number of users. As a consequence, Cloud computing services are being used to realize a wide range of applications, each having unique dependability and Quality-of-Service (Qos) requirements. For example, a small enterprise may use a Cloud storage service as a simple backup solution, requiring high data availability, while a large government organization may execute a real-time mission-critical application using the Cloud compute service, requiring high levels of dependability (e.g., reliability, availability, security) and performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Model-Driven Tools for Dependability Management in Component-Based Distributed Systems
    Model-driven Tools for Dependability Management in Component-based Distributed Systems Sumant Tambe†, Akshay Dabholkar†, Jaiganesh Balasubramanian†, Aniruddha Gokhale†, Douglas C. Schmidt† †Department of EECS, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA I. INTRODUCTION Emerging trends and challenges. Component-based software engineering supported by middleware technologies, such as CORBA Component Model (CCM) and Enterprise Java Beans (EJB), has emerged as a preferred way of developing enterprise distributed real-time and embedded (DRE) systems, such as smart buildings, modern office enterprises, and inflight entertainment systems. These systems consist of applications whose dependability requirements, such as availability and security, must be satisfied simultaneously to ensure dependable operation [1], [2]. For correct dependable operation of enterprise DRE systems, however, multiple dependability attributes must often be simultaneously satisfied. There are inherent challenges in satisfying multiple dependability attributes together due to tradeoffs and conflicts between them. For example, deploying replicas of a service on hosts that are unauthorized to access by clients may result in unavailability of the service to its clients on failure of another replica of the same service. It is hard to detect and analyze these errors at runtime, which motivates the need to catch as many errors at design-time as possible. Hence, there is a need for design-time tools to reason about the inherent tradeoffs and conflicts between multiple dependability attributes and alleviate complexities in developing dependable enterprise DRE systems. Figure 1 depicts desirable properties of a design-time tool that considers multiple dependability attributes (such as availability and security) to reason about system dependability e.g., protecting it from various hazards (such as faults and unauthorized access).
    [Show full text]