Influence Control for Dynamic Reconfiguration of Data Flow Systems

Influence control is a very challenging issue in dynamic reconfiguration and still not well addressed in the literature. This paper argues that dynamic reconfiguration influences system execution in four ways: functional update, functional side-effect, logical influence on performance and physical influence on performance. Methods including version control, transaction tracing, switching reconfiguration plan, and reconfiguration scheduling have been proposed for controlling the influence. These methods are integrated into the Reconfigurable Data Flow (RDF) model, which is designed to support the dynamic reconfiguration of stateless data flow systems. The RDF platform is an implementation of the RDF model on Java platform. The RDF platform is implemented as an open frame for different reconfiguration planning algorithms and scheduling policies to be simulated and their influence to be quantitatively compared on a single platform. Using the Data Encryption and Digital Signature System as a case study, tests have been done on the RDF platform to examine the influence of different reconfiguration planning algorithms and scheduling policies. Experimental results show that the methods proposed in this paper is effective in controlling the influence of dynamic reconfigurations.

[1]  Maarten Wegdam,et al.  Dynamic Reconfiguration and Load Distribution in Component Middleware , 2003 .

[2]  Wei Li,et al.  Influence Control for Dynamic Reconfiguration , 2007, 2007 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'07).

[3]  Sandeep S. Kulkarni,et al.  Correctness of Component-Based Adaptation , 2004, CBSE.

[4]  Petr Hnetynka,et al.  SOFA 2.0: Balancing Advanced Features in a Hierarchical Component Model , 2006, Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA'06).

[5]  Jeff Magee,et al.  The Evolving Philosophers Problem: Dynamic Change Management , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[6]  Edward A. Lee,et al.  Advances in the dataflow computational model , 1999, Parallel Comput..

[7]  Richard N. Taylor,et al.  A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  Dennis Heimbigner,et al.  Deployment and dynamic reconfiguration planning for distributed software systems , 2003, Proceedings. 15th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[9]  Dennis Heimbigner,et al.  Deployment and dynamic reconfiguration planning for distributed software systems , 2007, Software Quality Journal.

[10]  Kung-Kiu Lau,et al.  A taxonomy of software component models , 2005, 31st EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications.

[11]  Gang Cheng A dataflow-based software integration model in parallel and distributed computing and applications , 1996 .

[12]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  A model for dynamic configuration which preserves application integrity , 1996, Proceedings of International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems.

[13]  Liuba Shrira,et al.  Scheduling and Simulation: How to Upgrade Distributed Systems , 2003, HotOS.

[14]  Peter H. Feiler,et al.  Consistency in dynamic reconfiguration , 1998, Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (Cat. No.98EX159).

[15]  Stefan Van Baelen,et al.  Managing quality of service during evolution using component contracts , 2003 .

[16]  L. Bellissard,et al.  Ensuring Dynamic Reconfiguration Consistency , 2001 .

[17]  Robert Scott Mitchell,et al.  Dynamic configuration of distributed multimedia components , 2013 .