Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

User-Centric Adaptation Analysis of Multi-Tenant Services

Published: 13 January 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Multi-tenancy is a key pillar of cloud services. It allows different users to share computing and virtual resources transparently, meanwhile guaranteeing substantial cost savings. Due to the tradeoff between scalability and customization, one of the major drawbacks of multi-tenancy is limited configurability. Since users may often have conflicting configuration preferences, offering the best user experience is an open challenge for service providers. In addition, the users, their preferences, and the operational environment may change during the service operation, thus jeopardizing the satisfaction of user preferences. In this article, we present an approach to support user-centric adaptation of multi-tenant services. We describe how to engineer the activities of the Monitoring, Analysis, Planning, Execution (MAPE) loop to support user-centric adaptation, and we focus on adaptation analysis. Our analysis computes a service configuration that optimizes user satisfaction, complies with infrastructural constraints, and minimizes reconfiguration obtrusiveness when user- or service-related changes take place. To support our analysis, we model multi-tenant services and user preferences by using feature and preference models, respectively. We illustrate our approach by utilizing different cases of virtual desktops. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of the analysis in improving user preferences satisfaction in negligible time.

References

[1]
Raian Ali, Carlos Solis, Inah Omoronyia, Mazeiar Salehie, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2012. Social adaptation: When software gives users a voice. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering.
[2]
Mohsen Asadi, Samaneh Soltani, Dragan Gasevic, Marek Hatala, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2014. Toward automated feature model configuration with optimizing non-functional requirements. Information and Software Technology 56, 9 (2014), 1144--1165.
[3]
Luciano Baresi, Sam Guinea, and Liliana Pasquale. 2012. Service-oriented dynamic software product lines. IEEE Computer 45, 10 (2012), 42--48.
[4]
David Benavides, Sergio Segura, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortes. 2010. Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Information Systems 35, 6 (2010), 615--636.
[5]
Nelly Bencomo, Peter Sawyer, Gordon S. Blair, and Paul Grace. 2008. Dynamically adaptive systems are product lines too: Using model-driven techniques to capture dynamic variability of adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Product Lines (Workshops). 23--32.
[6]
Jorge Bernal Bernabe, Juan M. Marin Perez, Jose M. Alcaraz Calero, Felix J. Garcia Clemente, Gregorio Martinez Perez, and Antonio F. Gomez Skarmeta. 2014. Semantic-aware multi-tenancy authorization system for cloud architectures. Future Generation Computer Systems 32 (2014), 154--167.
[7]
C.-P. Bezemer, Andy Zaidman, Bart Platzbeecker, Toine Hurkmans, and A. T. Hart. 2010. Enabling multi-tenancy: An industrial experience report. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Maintenance. 1--8.
[8]
Cristina Cabanillas, José M. García, Manuel Resinas, David Ruiz, Jan Mendling, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. 2013. Priority-based human resource allocation in business processes. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing. 374--388.
[9]
Valeria Cardellini, Emiliano Casalicchio, Vincenzo Grassi, Stefano Iannucci, Francesco Lo Presti, and Raffaela Mirandola. 2012. Moses: A framework for QoS driven runtime adaptation of service-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 5 (2012), 1138--1159.
[10]
Simon Caton and Omer Rana. 2012. Towards autonomic management for cloud services based upon volunteered resources. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 24, 9 (2012), 992--1014.
[11]
Citrix. 2013. Citrix Virtual Desktop Handbook 7.x. Retrieved from http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX139331.
[12]
Fabiano Dalpiaz, Estefan’ia Serral, Pedro Valderas, Paolo Giorgini, and Vicente Pelechano. 2012. A NFR-based framework for user-centered adaptation. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, 439--448.
[13]
Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 2 (2002), 182--197.
[14]
Juan J. Durillo and Antonio J. Nebro. 2011. jMetal: A Java framework for multi-objective optimization. Advances in Engineering Software 42, 10 (2011), 760--771.
[15]
E. Ostrom. 1990. Governing the Commons. CUP.
[16]
Hamidreza Eskandari, Christopher D. Geiger, and Gary B. Lamont. 2007. FastPGA: A dynamic population sizing approach for solving expensive multiobjective optimization problems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Springer, 141--155.
[17]
Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Mary Czerwinski, Desney S. Tan, and Daniel S. Weld. 2006. Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces., 201--208.
[18]
Sarah Gallacher, Eliza Papadopoulou, Nick K. Taylor, and M. Howard Williams. 2013. Learning user preferences for adaptive pervasive environments: An incremental and temporal approach. ACM Transactions on Autonomous Adaptive Systems 8, 1 (2013).
[19]
José M. García, Martin Junghans, David Ruiz, Sudhir Agarwal, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortés. 2013. Integrating semantic web services ranking mechanisms using a common preference model. Knowledge-Based Systems 49 (2013), 22--36.
[20]
Jesús García-Galán, Liliana Pasquale, Pablo Trinidad, and Antonio Ruiz Cortés. 2014. User-centric adaptation of multi-tenant services: Preference-based analysis for service reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. 65--74.
[21]
J. García-Galán, O. F. Rana, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. 2013. Migrating to the cloud: A software product line based analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science. 416--426.
[22]
Jesús García-Galán, Pablo Trinidad, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortés. 2013. Multi-user variability configuration: A game theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 574--579.
[23]
Jianmei Guo, Jules White, Guangxin Wang, Jian Li, and Yinglin Wang. 2011. A genetic algorithm for optimized feature selection with resource constraints in software product lines. Journal of Systems and Software 84, 12 (2011), 2208--2221.
[24]
Christian Inzinger, Benjamin Satzger, Philipp Leitner, Waldemar Hummer, and Schahram Dustdar. 2013. Model-based adaptation of cloud computing applications. In Procedings of the 1st International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development. 351--355.
[25]
Wendy Ju and Larry Leifer. 2008. The design of implicit interactions: Making interactive systems less obnoxious. Design Issues 24, 3 (2008), 72--84.
[26]
Kyo Kang, Sholom Cohen, James Hess, William Novak, and A. Peterson. 1990. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
[27]
J. O. Kephart and D. M. Chess. 2003. The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36, 1 (2003), 41--50.
[28]
I. Kumara, J. Han, A. Colman, Tuan Nguyen, and M. Kapuruge. 2013. Sharing with a difference: Realizing service-based saas applications with runtime sharing and variation in dynamic software product lines. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Services Computing. 567--574.
[29]
Steffen Lamparter, Anupriya Ankolekar, Rudi Studer, and Stephan Grimm. 2007. Preference-based selection of highly configurable web services. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web. 1013--1022.
[30]
Sam Malek, Nenad Medvidovic, and Marija Mikic-Rakic. 2012. An extensible framework for improving a distributed software system’s deployment architecture. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 1 (2012), 73--100.
[31]
R. Timothy Marler and Jasbir S. Arora. 2004. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26, 6 (2004), 369--395.
[32]
Clarissa Cassales Marquezan, Florian Wessling, Andreas Metzger, Klaus Pohl, Chris Woods, and Karl Wallbom. 2014. Towards exploiting the full adaptation potential of cloud applications. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Principles of Engineering Service-Oriented and Cloud Systems, 48--57.
[33]
Michael Maurer, Ivona Brandic, and Rizos Sakellariou. 2013. Adaptive resource configuration for cloud infrastructure management. Future Generation Computer Systems 29, 2 (2013), 472--487.
[34]
Ralph Mietzner, Andreas Metzger, Frank Leymann, and Klaus Pohl. 2009. Variability modeling to support customization and deployment of multi-tenant-aware software as a service applications. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Engineering Service-Oriented Systems, 18--25.
[35]
Roger B. Myerson. 1991. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
[36]
V. Nallur and R. Bahsoon. 2013. A decentralized self-adaptation mechanism for service-based applications in the cloud. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 5 (2013), 591--612.
[37]
Yefim V. Natis. 2012. Gartner Reference Model for Elasticity and Multitenancy. Technical Report. Gartner, Inc.
[38]
J. Pitt, J. Schaumeier, D. Busquets, and S. Macbeth. 2012. Self-organising common-pool resource allocation and canons of distributive justice. In Proceeddings of the 6th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. 119--128.
[39]
Ana B. Sánchez, Sergio Segura, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortés. 2014. The drupal framework: A case study to evaluate variability testing techniques. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems. 11.
[40]
Abdel Salam Sayyad, Joseph Ingram, Tim Menzies, and Hany Ammar. 2013. Scalable product line configuration: A straw to break the camel’s back. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 465--474.
[41]
Julia Schroeter, Sebastian Cech, Sebastian Götz, Claas Wilke, and Uwe Assmann. 2012a. Towards modeling a variable architecture for multi-tenant SaaS-applications. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems.
[42]
Julia Schroeter, Peter Mucha, Marcel Muth, Kay Jugel, and Malte Lochau. 2012b. Dynamic configuration management of cloud-based applications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference - Volume 2, 171--178.
[43]
S. Segura, José Á. Galindo, David Benavides, José A. Parejo, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. 2012. BeTTy: Benchmarking and testing on the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. Leipzig, Germany.
[44]
Hui Song, Stephen Barrett, Aidan Clarke, and Siobhán Clarke. 2013. Self-adaptation with end-user preferences: Using run-time models and constraint solving. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. 555--571.
[45]
Cheri Speier, Iris Vessey, and Joseph S. Valacich. 2003. The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences 34, 4 (2003), 771--797.
[46]
Jacob Stein, Ingrid Nunes, and Elder Cirilo. 2014. Preference-based feature model configuration with multiple stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Lines Conference. 132--141.
[47]
Thomas Thum, Christian Kastner, Sebastian Erdweg, and Norbert Siegmund. 2011. Abstract features in feature modeling. In Proceedings of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference. 10.
[48]
P. Trinidad, D. Benavides, A. Ruiz-Cortés, S. Segura, and A. Jimenez. 2008. FAMA framework. In 12th Software Product Lines Conference. 359--359.
[49]
Bert Vankeirsbilck, Lien Deboosere, Pieter Simoens, Piet Demeester, Filip De Turck, and Bart Dhoedt. 2014. User subscription-based resource management for desktop-as-a-service platforms. Journal of Supercomputing 69, 1 (2014), 412--428.
[50]
Guiyi Wei, Athanasios V. Vasilakos, Yao Zheng, and Naixue Xiong. 2010. A game-theoretic method of fair resource allocation for cloud computing services. Journal of Supercomputing 54, 2 (2010), 252--269.
[51]
J. White, D. Benavides, D. C. Schmidt, P. Trinidad, B. Dougherty, and A. Ruiz-Cortes. 2010. Automated diagnosis of feature model configurations. Journal of Systems and Software 83, 7 (2010), 1094--1107.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm and XML Filtering Technique for Multi-Tenant SaaS Configuration Management2021 IEEE 12th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON)10.1109/IEMCON53756.2021.9623123(0223-0228)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2021
  • (2019)Policy-Driven Middleware for Multi-Tenant SaaS Services ConfigurationInternational Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing10.4018/IJCAC.20191001059:4(86-106)Online publication date: Oct-2019
  • (2018)Certification-Based Cloud AdaptationIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2018.2793268(1-1)Online publication date: 2018
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Reviews

John S. Edwards

A method to arrive at configuration consensus in a multitenant shared-service cloud environment is presented in this paper. Section 1 discusses the multitenant cloud. The authors are interested in such systems where each member of the user community has the capability to dynamically modify or preselect various preferences. Since an activity on the part of one user might conflict with the preferences of another member of the community, the authors propose user-centric adaptations based on preference-based analyses. They introduce a four-fold process: monitoring, analysis, planning, and executing (MAPE) in terms of a loop. They use a game-theoretic mechanism to demonstrate their approach. Section 2 discusses the motivating scenario. Section 3 covers the problem. Section 4 describes a solution approach. Section 5 presents the implementation of their prototype. While this paper could be of value to workers in the field, several comments are in order. The scenario chosen as an example comprises four tenants and their preferences. The preferences are a combination of the mundane and the extraordinary. The choice between "Aero" and "Classic" is mundane. The choices among "Very frequent antivirus checks," "Frequent antivirus checks," and "Unfrequent virus checks" are strange and seemingly forced, as is the choice between "Highest firewall level" and "Medium firewall level." These choices attempt to reflect real-life conditions, but they seem artificial. Indeed, a reader could code the preferences (and the authors do in some cases) differently; for example, "Aero" and "Classic" could be coded as " x " and "not x " while the preferences "Very frequent antivirus checks," "Frequent antivirus checks," and "Unfrequent virus checks" could be coded as " y +," " y ," and "- y ." The analysis could proceed without the semantics. Three very complex figures are included purporting to indicate how the process works. Section 4.2, "Analysis," uses game theory to arrive at a solution. Unfortunately, the discussion is chock-a-block with formulae and must be either taken at face value for those who are not game theory adepts or taken for granted by adepts. The results of the game are discussed as it progresses. The authors discuss the need to extend their work and give examples of where they may choose to go. In the final section, as they point out, their approach could equally apply to "any kind of adaptive system" and they chose one based upon multitenant services. This work could be of general utility; perhaps they chose the multitenant environment to attract attention to the effort. A more abstract presentation would have been valid, but perhaps less noteworthy. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems
ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems  Volume 10, Issue 4
Special Section on Best Papers from SEAMS 2014 and Regular Articles
February 2016
211 pages
ISSN:1556-4665
EISSN:1556-4703
DOI:10.1145/2872308
Issue’s Table of Contents
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 the author(s) 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: 13 January 2016
Accepted: 01 June 2015
Revised: 01 March 2015
Received: 01 October 2010
Published in TAAS Volume 10, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. User systems
  2. human information processing
  3. multi-tenant services

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • Science Foundation Ireland
  • ERC Advanced Grant (ASAP)
  • Spanish and the Andalusian R&D programmes
  • European Commission (FEDER)

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 03 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm and XML Filtering Technique for Multi-Tenant SaaS Configuration Management2021 IEEE 12th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON)10.1109/IEMCON53756.2021.9623123(0223-0228)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2021
  • (2019)Policy-Driven Middleware for Multi-Tenant SaaS Services ConfigurationInternational Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing10.4018/IJCAC.20191001059:4(86-106)Online publication date: Oct-2019
  • (2018)Certification-Based Cloud AdaptationIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2018.2793268(1-1)Online publication date: 2018
  • (2017)Automated Constraint-Based Multi-tenant SaaS Configuration Support Using XML Filtering Techniques2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)10.1109/COMPSAC.2017.69(413-418)Online publication date: Jul-2017
  • (2016)A Certification Technique for Cloud Security Adaptation2016 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC)10.1109/SCC.2016.49(324-331)Online publication date: Jun-2016

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media