Luận án Researching multi-cloud marketplace model

Nội dung text: Luận án Researching multi-cloud marketplace model

1. them have to be re-deployed and re-established application inter-connections by hand so that the operation of the cloud application is as an initial state, this takes a lot of time and is difficult to ensure the correctness if the repairing process is not automated. To reach this issue, Blueprint provides a comprehensive overview of the structure of cloud applications are active. It is very useful mechanism for finding error of ser- vice components within the application by monitoring based on the cloud application structure. In this approach, CAM is the Blueprint which is cloud application orches- tration plan and is the basis for deploying and configuring a multi-cloud application. According CAM definition, a cloud software is a composition is made up of software components in a nested structured way, and a multi-cloud application is created after matchmaking cloud software with a group of compatible cloud platforms. So cloud application is a group of distributed software components on various clouds. The op- eration of cloud application is as an orchestration of cloud service components from different clouds. Cloud application operation is interrupted if one or more cloud ser- vice components fail. To ensure the service is smooth, these cloud service components have to be repaired. That is, it must determine which components are faulty, then re-deploying and re-establishing their relevant inter-connections. If this work is done by hand, it takes much effort to identify the faulty service components as well as re- establishing cloud service components as the initial state. To overcome this issue, we propose a promising approach for auto-repairing these faulty service components by utilizing Blueprint which is the basis for automatically re-constructing cloud ap- plication whenever an error is detected. Hence, cloud application is auto-repaired by re-deploying the failed component(s) and re-established application interconnection(s) so that the operation of the cloud application is as an initial state. 4.6.3.2 Procedure of multi-cloud application auto-repairing In Figure 4.31, auto-repairing procedure is based on the supplied Blueprint which depict all relations of its component. There are three steps as follows: Step 1: multi-cloud failure detection monitors the operations of cloud service com- ponents by checking the operation status and the connection status of each component according to the relationship depicted in the blueprint. This work needs to determine clearly the type of failure. Step 2: if a failure is detected, multi-cloud failure detection sends request to multi- cloud runtime engine. Step 3: analyzing the request to determine the type of failure, then re-deploying 94
2. • Relationship denotes the dependencies between components within a cloud soft- ware. The structure of cloud application is made up from collecting relationships of component pairs. Hence, the inter-connections inside application cloud be es- tablished in deployment processes. • Node Template denotes a list of application component specifications including software component description and platform description. Each component de- scription contains its own attributes such as requirements, capabilities, mapping, policies, artifact reference, etc. Deploying and re-deploying some component-based applications on several cloud infrastructures. An example is depicted in Figure 4.21 is successful if including two implementations. First, Wordpress application components are deployed on two cloud infrastructures, which are OpenStack and Flexiant. Then, one or more software com- ponents are re-deployed. The core of implementation process is Blueprint. The neces- sary properties are derived from Blueprint as follows: (i) Node Template and Relation- ship specify application service component, deployment or re-deployment gets source code, shell scripts from Artifact, (ii) inter-connection(s) is re-established by Relation- ship. Beside, SALSA (Figure 2.7) provides a runtime environment that supports the re-deployment and re-configuration of cloud application. By this way, we validate ideal that Blueprint can be used for auto-repairing multi- cloud application with the properties taken from the Blueprint. Hence, the procedure depicted in Figure 4.31 is feasibility. 4.7 Discussions of CAM Through Section 4.5, the feasibility of CAM is proved. The applicability is ex- pressed through Subsections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.3. Moreover, CAM is not only the core of solutions related to the evolution of O-Marketplace, but also plays a key role in cloud application development. 4.7.1 The role of CAM in O-Marketplace model Composable Application Model alters the role of suppliers to add values to both developers and consumers because its structure assists in reducing vendor lock-in and benefit consumers. 96
3. ware solutions. Software components within a cloud application can be separately developed on various cloud technology platforms which differ in functionality and de- ployment capability. Enhancing the ability to reuse cloud software components, developers can build up a multi-component cloud software by just incorporating existing cloud software components of others into their cloud software solution. This save cost and time in cloud application development. In addition, an interesting feature of CAM-D that is quite similar to a program written in a programming language. The application template is the main program, component templates are procedures and arguments of a procedure can refer to param- eters of others. This is very convenient for developer to independently develop cloud software. He could package the software component as a “Black Box” and just ex- press properties to the outer ports of such component. This is the special feature that CAM-D brings. 4.8 Summary In this chapter, CAM is designed as a uniform for multi-cloud application. Firstly, we present briefly a survey of some studies and pointed out the issue, the lack of multi-cloud application model was identified. Secondly, the general concept of CAM is presented. Thirdly, a simple definition of CAM is specifically defined. Fourthly, the CAM-based description method for multi-cloud marketplace application is con- structed. Fifthly, the experimentation of CAM is conducted, a transformation method was proposed and implemented with a case study. Sixthly, the practicality of CAM in the O-Marketplace context is proved through proposals in multi-cloud application matchmaking, multi-cloud application portability, and multi-cloud application auto- repairing. Finally, there was the discussion of Composable Application Model to ex- press the effectiveness of proposed model. These achievements are the foundation for O-Marketplace to take shape and evolve. Especially, CAM and results in Section 4.6.1 and Section 4.6.2 are significant contributions in reducing vendor lock-in and creating the direct competition for cloud market. 98
4. Therefore, from our view, these problems were focus on solving. Our studies was carried out the emerging context of multi-cloud environment with issues linked to the multi-cloud marketplace model, the non-proprietary cloud software development and distributed deployment of multi-cloud application. Focusing on these challenges, our works achieved the following results: Reducing vendor lock-in (i) Creating a direct competition environment for cloud services: in a market where supplier has been utilizing technology to outpace their competitors, the need to innovate and deploy quickly can be the difference between survival and going under. On the one hand, developers can create software components without be- ing pressured into the standardization of cloud APIs. On the other hand, cloud providers must develop platform components to meet the technology require- ments of software components. Therefore, providers must regularly add new features and develop cross-platform compatible services to give consumers more flexibility in using cloud services. Thanks to this active mechanism, vendor lock- in is reduced, a competitive market between cloud vendors is created, and devel- opers are the pilots in cloud market development. The direct competition is the key mechanism of O-Marketplace. This work is presented in Section 3.3 (ii) Separating cloud software and underlying platform in SaaS development and SaaS provisioning: Composable Application Model defines SaaS to be made up from cloud software components and cloud platform services, these compo- nents are provided separately by various suppliers. Consumers can freely pur- chase component-based cloud software and select compatible cloud platform ser- vices as they wish. Each cloud software components could be developed without necessarily relying on proprietary technology ecosystems and hosted on several types of runtime system. So the separation is the basis for reducing vendor lock- in problem. The achievement is expressed in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and Subsec- tion 4.6.1. (iii) Enhancing multi-cloud application portability: Because the multi-cloud appli- cation is managed by CAM-based Blueprint which is the basis for porting cloud software components to other compatible cloud platforms provided by various cloud providers. Each software component can be hosted on various cloud plat- forms without having to re-develop. Therefore, enhancing the compatibility ex- pansion from cloud providers and vendor lock-in problem is reduced. This is 100
5. mal compatible platforms for a specific component-based cloud software. The proposed matchmaking method not only gives the consumer the flexibility to use the cloud services and services as they refer but also promotes the cloud service development from both developers and cloud providers. (iv) Supporting auto-repairing for multi-cloud marketplace application: CAM is utilized as a Blueprint for multi-cloud application. This brings an promising ap- proaches for auto-repairing multi-cloud application if there is any faulty service component. (v) The superiority of CAM over TOSCA: To evaluate the advantages of CAM-D in particular and CAM in general, a comparison between CAM-D and TOSCA Specification is showed in Table 5.1 because TOSCA has been the well-known standard. However, TOSCA Specification has not totally developed for multi- cloud application specification. Table 5.1: The comparison between CAM-D and TOSCA Specification TOSCA FEATURES CAM-D Specification Topology Nested structure Flat structure Cloud software YES NO portability Component-based cloud YES NO application description Synthesized from component YES NO specifications Multi-cloud service YES NO matchmaking The comparison showed the superior features of CAM-D compared with TOSCA specification. CAM-D especially supports Cloud software portability, Component- based cloud application description, Synthesized from component specifications, and Multi-cloud service matchmaking. These features have proved the feasibil- ity of our proposal with distinct advantages for multi-cloud application develop- ment. By the achieved results, the thesis completed all goals of the assignment and con- tributed for cloud computing evolution: 102
6. the multi-cloud application adequately can increase the costs of using such appli- cation and could affect business agility. Multi-cloud adds management complex- ity and, if left un-managed, could impact the agility and add costs. Otherwise, organizations will require time and specific skills that are not always available in-house. As enterprises increasingly adopt the model of cloud computing, their IT environments are transformed into a matrix of interwoven infrastructure, plat- form and application services delivered by multiple providers. In most cases, these services will span not only different technologies and geographies, but en- tirely different domains of ownership and control, making the strategic and oper- ational management of the new, cloud-based IT landscape is a rather challenging exercise. (ii) QoS/SLA: goal of developing a service ranking mechanism based on quality of service and a SLA-based service quality assurance mechanism. These mecha- nisms require an effective method for monitoring cloud service quality on multi- cloud environment. (iii) Security: the line of defense runs across more than one single provider, so it is essential that robustly secure networking and security measures are put in place. Areas which need close scrutiny include finding ways to monitor across different cloud platforms and ensuring that governance is comprehensive and ro- bust. Multi-cloud also complicates the application security and the complexity increases further when the driving architectural pattern for innovation is more micro-services based. (iv) Migration: cloud migration is always a big challenge. Especially, Data lock-in and data transfer are two major obstacles of cloud computing. 104
7. Cloud Service Layer for Resource Constrained Settings”. 08 2021. doi:10.21203/ rs.3.rs-785341/v1. [9] Yannis Bakos. “A Strategic Analysis of Electronic Marketplaces”. MIS quarterly, vol. 15(3), p. 295–310, Oct. 1991. ISSN 0276-7783. doi:10.2307/249641. URL [10] Yannis Bakos. “The Emerging Role of Electronic Marketplaces on the Internet”. Communications of the ACM, vol. 41(8), p. 35–42, Aug. 1998. ISSN 0001- 0782. doi:10.1145/280324.280330. URL 280324.280330. [11] George Baryannis, Panagiotis Garefalakis, Kyriakos Kritikos, Kostas Magoutis, Antonis Papaioannou, Dimitris Plexousakis, and Chrysostomos Zeginis. “Lifecy- cle management of service-based applications on multi-clouds”. In Proceedings of the 2013 International workshop on Multi-cloud applications and federated clouds (Multicloud’13), pp. 13–20. 2013. doi:10.1145/2462326.2462331. [12] Tobias Binz, Uwe Breitenbucher,¨ Florian Haupt, Oliver Kopp, Frank Leymann, Alexander Nowak, and Sebastian Wagner. “OpenTOSCA–a runtime for TOSCA- based cloud applications”. In International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, pp. 692–695. Springer, 2013. [13] Tobias Binz, Gerd Breiter, Frank Leyman, and Thomas Spatzier. “Portable Cloud Services Using TOSCA”. IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 16(3), pp. 80–85, 2012. doi:10.1109/MIC.2012.43. [14] BIRDS. [15] Kevin D. Bowers, Ari Juels, and Alina Oprea. “HAIL: A High-Availability and Integrity Layer for Cloud Storage”. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’09, p. 187–198. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ISBN 9781605588940. doi:10.1145/1653662.1653686. URL 10.1145/1653662.1653686. [16] Eirik Brandtzaeg, Sebastien´ Mosser, and Parastoo Mohagheghi. “Towards CloudML, a Model-based Approach to Provision Resources in the Clouds”. In 8th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA), p. 18–27. 2012. 106
8. Engineering, vol. 1(1), pp. 146–166, March 1989. ISSN 1041-4347. doi:10.1109/ 69.43410. [25] Georgiana Copil, Daniel Moldovan, Hong-Linh Truong, and Schahram Dustdar. “Multi-level Elasticity Control of Cloud Services”. In Samik Basu, Cesare Pau- tasso, Liang Zhang, and Xiang Fu (eds.), Service-Oriented Computing, pp. 429– 436. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. ISBN 978-3-642- 45005-1. [26] Krzysztof Czarnecki, J. Nathan Foster, Zhenjiang Hu, Ralf Lammel,¨ Andy Schurr,¨ and James F. Terwilliger. “Bidirectional Transformations: A Cross- Discipline Perspective”. In Richard F. Paige (ed.), Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 260–283. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. ISBN 978-3-642-02408-5. [27] Francesco DAndria, Stefano Bocconi, Jesus Gorronogoitia Cruz, James Ahtes, and Dimitris Zeginis. “Cloud4soa: Multi-cloud application management across paas offerings”. In 2012 14th International Symposium on Symbolic and Nu- meric Algorithms for Scientific Computing, pp. 407–414. IEEE, 2012. doi: 10.1109/SYNASC.2012.65. [28] Beniamino Di Martino. “Applications Portability and Services Interoperability among Multiple Clouds”. IEEE Cloud Computing, vol. 1, pp. 74–77, 05 2014. doi:10.1109/MCC.2014.1. [29] Wisam Elshareef, Hesham Arafat Ali, and Amira Y. Haikal. “A Matchmaking Strategy Of Mixed Resource On Cloud Computing Environment”. International Journal OF Scientific and Technology Research, vol. 4, 2015. [30] Xavier Etchevers, Gwen Salaun,¨ Fabienne Boyer, Thierry Coupaye, and Noel De Palma. “Reliable Self-Deployment of Cloud Applications”. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1331–1338, 03 2014. doi: 10.1145/2554850.2554951. [31] Benjamin Fabian, Annika Baumann, and Jessika Lackner. “Topological analysis of cloud service connectivity”. Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 88, pp. 151–165, 2015. 108
9. [40] David Garlan, Robert T. Monroe, and David Wile. ”Acme: Architectural De- scription of Component-Based Systems”, p. 47–67. Cambridge University Press, USA, 2000. ISBN 0521771641. [41] Sudeep Ghimire, Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves, and Antonio Grilo. “Framework for catalogues matching in procurement e-marketplaces”. In 2013 8th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1–6. IEEE, 2013. [42] Claudio Giovanoli, Prasad Pulikal, and Stella Gatziu Grivas. “E-Marketplace for Cloud Services”. pp. 76–83. Citeseer, 05 2014. [43] Nikolay Grozev and Rajkumar Buyya. “Inter-Cloud Architectures and Appli- cation Brokering: Taxonomy and Survey”. Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 44(3), p. 369–390, Mar. 2014. ISSN 0038-0644. doi:10.1002/spe.2168. URL [44] Joaqu´ın Guillen,´ Javier Miranda, Juan Manuel Murillo, and Carlos Canal. “A service-oriented framework for developing cross cloud migratable software”. Journal of Systems and Software, pp. 2294–2308, 2013. ISSN 01641212. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.033. [45] Adrian´ Juan-Verdejo and Bholanathsingh Surajbali. “XaaS multi-cloud market- place architecture enacting the industry 4.0 concepts”. In Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, pp. 11–23. Springer, 2016. [46] Juju Charms URL. Accessed: 2019-04-26. [47] Stefan Kolb and Guido Wirtz. “Towards application portability in platform as a service”. In Proceedings - IEEE 8th International Symposium on Service Oriented System Engineering, SOSE 2014. 2014. ISBN 9781479925049. doi: 10.1109/SOSE.2014.26. [48] Duc-Hung Le, Hong-Linh Truong, Georgiana Copil, Stefan Nastic, and Schahram Dustdar. “SALSA: a framework for dynamic configuration of cloud services”. In 2014 IEEE 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing Tech- nology and Science, pp. 146–153. 2014. doi:10.1109/CloudCom.2014.99. [49] Haifei Li and Jj Jeng. “CCMarketplace: A marketplace model for a hybrid cloud”. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference of the Center for Advanced 110
10. [59] Justice Opara-Martins, Reza Sahandi, and Feng Tian. “Critical analysis of ven- dor lock-in and its impact on cloud computing migration: a business perspec- tive”. Journal of Cloud Computing, vol. 5(1), pp. 1–18, 2016. [60] OpenStack HEAT URL. latest/. Accessed: 2019-04-26. [61] Fawaz Paraiso, Nicolas Haderer, Philippe Merle, Romain Rouvoy, and Lionel Seinturier. “A federated multi-cloud PaaS infrastructure”. In 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Cloud Computing, pp. 392–399. IEEE, 2012. doi: 10.1109/CLOUD.2012.79. [62] Fawaz Paraiso, Philippe Merle, and Lionel Seinturier. “SoCloud: A Service- Oriented Component-Based PaaS for Managing Portability, Provisioning, Elas- ticity, and High Availability across Multiple Clouds”. Computing, vol. 98(5), p. 539–565, May 2016. ISSN 0010-485X. doi:10.1007/s00607-014-0421-x. URL [63] Parallels URL. Accessed: 2015-04-1. [64] Dana Petcu. “Portability and Interoperability between Clouds: Challenges and Case Study - (Invited Paper)”. In European Conference on a Service-Based In- ternet, pp. 62–74. Springer, 2011. [65] Dana Petcu and Athanasios V Vasilakos. “Portability in clouds: approaches and research opportunities”. Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience, vol. 15(3), pp. 251–270, 2014. [66] D Plummer, B Lheureux, M Cantara, and T Bova. “Cloud services brokerage is dominated by three primary roles”. Gartner Research Note G, vol. 226509, p. 23, 2011. [67] DC Plummer, BJ Lheureux, and F Karamouzis. “Defining Cloud Services Bro- kerage: Taking Intermediation to the Next Level. Report ID G00206187, Gart- ner”, 2010. [68] George Reese. ”Cloud Application Architectures: Building Applications and Infrastructure in the Cloud”. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2009. ISBN 0596156367. 112
11. vey”. ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 47(1), may 2014. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/2593512. URL [79] G. Tricomi, A. Panarello, G. Merlino, F. Longo, D. Bruneo, and A. Puliafito. “Orchestrated Multi-Cloud Application Deployment in OpenStack with TOSCA”. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP), pp. 1–6. 2017. [80] Marko Vukolic.´ “The Byzantine empire in the intercloud”. ACM Sigact News, vol. 41(3), pp. 105–111, 2010. [81] Bruce Wallace. “A hole for every component, and every component in its hole”. Existential Programming.”There is no such thing as a Component”, 2010. [82] Wikipedia URL. lock-in. Accessed: 2022-01-01. [83] Cheng Zeng, Xiao Guo, Weijie Ou, and Dong Han. “Cloud Computing Service Composition and Search Based on Semantic”. In Martin Gilje Jaatun, Gansen Zhao, and Chunming Rong (eds.), Cloud Computing, pp. 290–300. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. ISBN 978-3-642-10665-1. [84] Qi Zhang, Lu Cheng, and R. Boutaba. “Cloud Computing: State-of-the-art and Research Challenges”. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, vol. 1, pp. 7–18, 05 2010. doi:10.1007/s13174-010-0007-6. [85] Begum¨ Ilke Zilci, Mathias Slawik, and Axel Kupper.¨ “Cloud Service Matchmak- ing Using Constraint Programming”. In 2015 IEEE 24th International Confer- ence on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, pp. 63–68. IEEE, June 2015. ISSN 1524-4547. 114