skip to main content
10.1145/3387939.3391604acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

DATESSO: self-adapting service composition with debt-aware two levels constraint reasoning

Published:18 September 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The rapidly changing workload of service-based systems can easily cause under-/over-utilization on the component services, which can consequently affect the overall Quality of Service (QoS), such as latency. Self-adaptive services composition rectifies this problem, but poses several challenges: (i) the effectiveness of adaptation can deteriorate due to over-optimistic assumptions on the latency and utilization constraints, at both local and global levels; and (ii) the benefits brought by each composition plan is often short term and is not often designed for long-term benefits---a natural prerequisite for sustaining the system. To tackle these issues, we propose a two levels constraint reasoning framework for sustainable self-adaptive services composition, called DATESSO. In particular, DATESSO consists of a refined formulation that differentiates the `strictness' for latency/utilization constraints in two levels. To strive for long-term benefits, DATESSO leverages the concept of technical debt and time-series prediction to model the utility contribution of the component services in the composition. The approach embeds a debt-aware two level constraint reasoning algorithm in DATESSO to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of self-adaptive service composition. We evaluate DATESSO on a service-based system with real-world WS-DREAM dataset and comparing it with other state-of-the-art approaches. The results demonstrate the superiority of DATESSO over the others on the utilization, latency and running time whilst likely to be more sustainable.

References

  1. Mohammad Alrifai and Thomas Risse. 2009. Combining global optimization with local selection for efficient QoS-aware service composition. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web. 881--890.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mohammad Alrifai, Thomas Risse, and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2012. A hybrid approach for efficient Web service composition with end-to-end QoS constraints. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 6, 2 (2012), 7:1--7:31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Nicolli SR Alves, Thiago S Mendes, Manoel G de Mendonça, Rodrigo O Spínola, Forrest Shull, and Carolyn Seaman. 2016. Identification and management of technical debt: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 70 (2016), 100--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Esra Alzaghoul and Rami Bahsoon. 2013. CloudMTD: Using real options to manage technical debt in cloud-based service selection. In 2013 4th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD). IEEE, 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Areti Ampatzoglou, Apostolos Ampatzoglou, Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, and Paris Avgeriou. 2015. The financial aspect of managing technical debt: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 64 (2015), 52--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Danilo Ardagna and Barbara Pernici. 2005. Global and local QoS constraints guarantee in web service selection. In IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'05). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Martin Arlitt and Tai Jin. 2000. A workload characterization study of the 1998 world cup web site. IEEE network 14, 3 (2000), 30--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Rafael Aschoff and Andrea Zisman. 2011. QoS-driven proactive adaptation of service composition. In International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing. Springer, 421--435.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Paris Avgeriou, Philippe Kruchten, Ipek Ozkaya, and Carolyn Seaman. 2016. Managing technical debt in software engineering (dagstuhl seminar 16162). In Dagstuhl Reports, Vol. 6. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank Buschmann. 2011. To pay or not to pay technical debt. IEEE software 28, 6 (2011), 29--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tao Chen. 2019. All versus one: an empirical comparison on retrained and incremental machine learning for modeling performance of adaptable software. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS@ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 25--31, 2019, Marin Litoiu, Siobhán Clarke, and Kenji Tei (Eds.). ACM, 157--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tao Chen and Rami Bahsoon. 2013. Self-adaptive and sensitivity-aware QoS modeling for the cloud. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS 2013, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 20--21, 2013. 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tao Chen and Rami Bahsoon. 2015. Toward a Smarter Cloud: Self-Aware Autoscaling of Cloud Configurations and Resources. IEEE Computer 48, 9 (2015), 93--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Tao Chen and Rami Bahsoon. 2017. Self-Adaptive and Online QoS Modeling for Cloud-Based Software Services. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 43, 5 (2017), 453--475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tao Chen and Rami Bahsoon. 2017. Self-Adaptive Trade-off Decision Making for Autoscaling Cloud-Based Services. IEEE Trans. Services Computing 10, 4 (2017), 618--632. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Tao Chen, Rami Bahsoon, Shuo Wang, and Xin Yao. 2018. To Adapt or Not to Adapt?: Technical Debt and Learning Driven Self-Adaptation for Managing Run-time Performance. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering, ICPE 2018, Berlin, Germany, April 09--13, 2018. 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Tao Chen, Rami Bahsoon, and Xin Yao. 2014. Online QoS Modeling in the Cloud: A Hybrid and Adaptive Multi-learners Approach. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, UCC 2014, London, United Kingdom, December 8--11, 2014. 327--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Tao Chen, Rami Bahsoon, and Xin Yao. 2018. A Survey and Taxonomy of Self-Aware and Self-Adaptive Cloud Autoscaling Systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 3 (2018), 61:1--61:40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Tao Chen, Rami Bahsoon, and Xin Yao. 2020. Synergizing Domain Expertise with Self-Awareness in Software Systems: A Patternized Architecture Guideline. Proc. IEEE in press (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tao Chen, Funmilade Faniyi, Rami Bahsoon, Peter R. Lewis, Xin Yao, Leandro L. Minku, and Lukas Esterle. 2014. The Handbook of Engineering Self-Aware and Self-Expressive Systems. CoRR abs/1409.1793 (2014). arXiv:1409.1793 http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1793Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Tao Chen, Ke Li, Rami Bahsoon, and Xin Yao. 2018. FEMOSAA: Feature-Guided and Knee-Driven Multi-Objective Optimization for Self-Adaptive Software. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 27, 2 (2018), 5:1--5:50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Tao Chen, Miqing Li, Ke Li, and Kalyanmoy Deb. 2020. Search-Based Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: One Survey, Five Disappointments and Six Opportunities. CoRR abs/2001.08236 (2020). arXiv:2001.08236 https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08236Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tao Chen, Miqing Li, and Xin Yao. 2018. On the effects of seeding strategies: a case for search-based multi-objective service composition. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2018, Kyoto, Japan, July 15--19, 2018. 1419--1426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Tao Chen, Miqing Li, and Xin Yao. 2019. Standing on the shoulders of giants: Seeding search-based multi-objective optimization with prior knowledge for software service composition. Information & Software Technology 114 (2019), 155--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Tao Chen, Miqing Li, and Xin Yao. 2020. How to Evaluate Solutions in Pareto-based Search-Based Software Engineering? A Critical Review and Methodological Guidance. CoRR abs/2002.09040 (2020). arXiv:2002.09040 https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09040Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacob Cohen. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Autonomic Computing et al. 2006. An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. IBM White Paper 31, 2006 (2006), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ward Cunningham. 1992. The WyCash portfolio management system. ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Messenger 4, 2 (1992), 29--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Yu Dai, Lei Yang, and Bin Zhang. 2009. QoS-driven self-healing web service composition based on performance prediction. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 24, 2 (2009), 250--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Martine De Cock, Sam Chung, and Omar Hafeez. 2007. Selection of web services with imprecise QoS constraints. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'07). IEEE, 535--541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. William H Kruskal and W Allen Wallis. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American statistical Association 47, 260 (1952), 583--621.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Satish Kumar, Rami Bahsoon, Tao Chen, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2019. Identifying and Estimating Technical Debt for Service Composition in SaaS Cloud. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). IEEE, 121--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Satish Kumar, Rami Bahsoon, Tao Chen, Ke Li, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2018. Multi-Tenant Cloud Service Composition Using Evolutionary Optimization. In 24th IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, ICPADS 2018, Singapore, December 11--13, 2018. 972--979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Touraj Laleh, Joey Paquet, Serguei Mokhov, and Yuhong Yan. 2017. Constraint adaptation in Web service composition. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC). IEEE, 156--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Peter R. Lewis, Arjun Chandra, Funmilade Faniyi, Kyrre Glette, Tao Chen, Rami Bahsoon, Jim Tørresen, and Xin Yao. 2015. Architectural Aspects of Self-Aware and Self-Expressive Computing Systems: From Psychology to Engineering. IEEE Computer 48, 8 (2015), 62--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Ke Li, Zilin Xiang, Tao Chen, Shuo Wang, and Kay Chen Tan. 2020. Understanding the Automated Parameter Optimization on Transfer Learning for CPDP: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '20), May 23--29, 2020, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Miqing Li, Tao Chen, and Xin Yao. 2018. A critical review of: "a practical guide to select quality indicators for assessing pareto-based search algorithms in search-based software engineering": essay on quality indicator selection for SBSE. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results, ICSE (NIER) 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018. 17--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Ying Li, Yuanlei Lu, Yuyu Yin, Shuiguang Deng, and Jianwei Yin. 2010. Towards qos-based dynamic reconfiguration of soa-based applications. In 2010 IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference. IEEE, 107--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Kwei-Jay Lin, Jing Zhang, Yanlong Zhai, and Bin Xu. 2010. The design and implementation of service process reconfiguration with end-to-end QoS constraints in SOA. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 4, 3 (2010), 157--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Maintainer Martin Maechler. 2019. Package `fracdiff'. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Franco Raimondi, James Skene, and Wolfgang Emmerich. 2008. Efficient online monitoring of web-service SLAs. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering. 170--180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Florian Rosenberg, Predrag Celikovic, Anton Michlmayr, Philipp Leitner, and Schahram Dustdar. 2009. An end-to-end approach for QoS-aware service composition. In 2009 IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. IEEE, 151--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Georgios Skourletopoulos, Constandinos X Mavromoustakis, Jordi Mongay Batalla, George Mastorakis, Evangelos Pallis, and Georgios Kormentzas. 2016. Quantifying and evaluating the technical debt on mobile cloud-based service level. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). IEEE, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Will Snipes, Brian Robinson, Yuepu Guo, and Carolyn Seaman. 2012. Defining the decision factors for managing defects: a technical debt perspective. In 2012 Third International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD). IEEE, 54--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Dalia Sobhy, Leandro L. Minku, Rami Bahsoon, Tao Chen, and Rick Kazman. 2020. Run-time evaluation of architectures: A case study of diversification in IoT. J. Syst. Softw. 159 (2020). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Edith Tom, AybüKe Aurum, and Richard Vidgen. 2013. An exploration of technical debt. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 6 (2013), 1498--1516.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Justin Q Veenstra, AI McLeod, and Maintainer JQ Veenstra. 2015. Package `arfima'. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. PengWei Wang, ZhiJun Ding, ChangJun Jiang, and MengChu Zhou. 2013. Constraint-aware approach to web service composition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 44, 6 (2013), 770--784.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Jin Xiu and Yao Jin. 2007. Empirical study of ARFIMA model based on fractional differencing. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 377, 1 (2007), 138--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Lei Yang, Yu Dai, and Bin Zhang. 2009. Performance Prediction Based EX-QoS Driven Approach for Adaptive Service Composition. Journal of Information Science & Engineering 25, 2 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Tao Yu, Yue Zhang, and Kwei-Jay Lin. 2007. Efficient algorithms for Web services selection with end-to-end QoS constraints. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 1, 1 (2007), 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Liangzhao Zeng, Boualem Benatallah, Anne HH Ngu, Marlon Dumas, Jayant Kalagnanam, and Henry Chang. 2004. QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Transactions on software engineering 30, 5 (2004), 311--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Zibin Zheng, Yilei Zhang, and Michael R Lyu. 2012. Investigating QoS of real-world web services. IEEE transactions on services computing 7, 1 (2012), 32--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. DATESSO: self-adapting service composition with debt-aware two levels constraint reasoning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SEAMS '20: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 15th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems
        June 2020
        211 pages
        ISBN:9781450379625
        DOI:10.1145/3387939

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 September 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate17of31submissions,55%

        Upcoming Conference

        ICSE 2025

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader