A comparative evaluation of mobile agent performance for network management

Despite the strategic and software engineering benefits mobile agents (MAs) brings to network management, their performance is still a controversial issue. A number of quantitative analyses and experiments on mobile agent performance have been reported in the last few years. Among the claims in these studies, there are some obvious controversies. In an effort to determine the existence of contradiction and explore the cause for disagreement, this paper compares a number of evaluative studies of MA performance in the network management domain. Their experiments and analytical models are briefly described, and their findings and conclusions are highlighted for effective contrasting. With direct inference from this comparative survey, we suggest that many factors must be carefully taken into account when evaluating the MA network management paradigm. These key factors include the size of the network, the specific management tasks the MA is to perform, the initial MA size, data compression, the transfer mode, the specific platform adopted, etc. Our careful examination reveals that most of the disagreement is caused by difference in the above measurement factors. Ample evidence from the reviewed studies demonstrated that MAs are not actually efficient enough for real-time polling and collecting large amount of data, but we have enough proof that MAs demonstrate considerable robustness and performance in performing complex local computing, data filtering and updating. One contradiction in the body of literature is identified when the network has limited size. More carefully planed study is needed to solve this obvious contradiction.

[1]  M. Goncalves Rubinstein,et al.  Evaluating the performance of mobile agents in network management , 1999, Seamless Interconnection for Universal Services. Global Telecommunications Conference. GLOBECOM'99. (Cat. No.99CH37042).

[2]  Haitham S. Cruickshank,et al.  Using mobile agents for network performance management , 2000, NOMS 2000. 2000 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium 'The Networked Planet: Management Beyond 2000' (Cat. No.00CB37074).

[3]  Mohamed El-Darieby,et al.  Intelligent mobile agents: towards network fault management automation , 1999, Integrated Network Management VI. Distributed Management for the Networked Millennium. Proceedings of the Sixth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management. (Cat. No.99EX302).

[4]  Steffen Lipperts,et al.  Enabling alarm correlation for a mobile agent based system and network management - a wrapper concept , 1999, IEEE International Conference on Networks. ICON '99 Proceedings (Cat. No.PR00243).

[5]  Jürgen Schönwälder,et al.  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Delegation of Management Scripts , 1999, RFC.

[6]  Iakovos S. Venieris,et al.  An evaluation study of mobile agent technology: standardization, implementation and evolution , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems.

[7]  Luis Moura Silva,et al.  Comparing the performance of mobile agent systems: a study of benchmarking , 2000, Comput. Commun..

[8]  Tony White,et al.  Mobile agents for network management , 1998, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[9]  Mohammed Ghanbari,et al.  Enabling mobile agent technology for intelligent bulk management data filtering , 2000, NOMS 2000. 2000 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium 'The Networked Planet: Management Beyond 2000' (Cat. No.00CB37074).

[10]  D. Gavalas,et al.  An infrastructure for distributed and dynamic network management based on mobile agent technology , 1999, 1999 IEEE International Conference on Communications (Cat. No. 99CH36311).

[11]  Hyacinth S. Nwana,et al.  Software agents: an overview , 1996, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[12]  Tony White,et al.  Network Modeling for Management Applications Using Intelligent Mobile Agents , 2004, Journal of Network and Systems Management.

[13]  Ravi Jain,et al.  A comparison of mobile agent and client-server paradigms for information retrieval tasks in virtual enterprises , 2000, Proceedings Academia/Industry Working Conference on Research Challenges '00. Next Generation Enterprises: Virtual Organizations and Mobile/Pervasive Technologies. AIWORC'00. (Cat. No.PR00628).

[14]  Michel Kadoch,et al.  Client-server and mobile agent: performances comparative study in the management of MIBs , 1999 .

[15]  Patricia Morreale,et al.  Mobile agents for active network management , 1999, MILCOM 1999. IEEE Military Communications. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36341).

[16]  Alexander Poylisher,et al.  Mobile agents for aggregation of network management data , 1999, Proceedings. First and Third International Symposium on Agent Systems Applications, and Mobile Agents.

[17]  Thomas Magedanz,et al.  GRASSHOPPER - A UNIVERSAL AGENT PLATFORM BASED ON OMG MASIF AND FIPA STANDARDS , 2000 .

[18]  Marcelo G. Rubinstein,et al.  Improving management performance by using multiple mobile agents , 2000, AGENTS '00.

[19]  Christine Morin,et al.  Towards distributed and dynamic networks management , 1998, NOMS 98 1998 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium.

[20]  M. Ghanbari,et al.  Complimentary polling modes for network performance management employing mobile agents , 1999, Seamless Interconnection for Universal Services. Global Telecommunications Conference. GLOBECOM'99. (Cat. No.99CH37042).

[21]  Mario Baldi,et al.  Evaluating the tradeoffs of mobile code design paradigms in network management applications , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[22]  Thomas Magedanz,et al.  Mobile agents - enabling technology for active intelligent network implementation , 1998, IEEE Netw..

[23]  M. Goncalves Rubinstein,et al.  Evaluating the performance of mobile agents in network management , 1999 .