skip to main content
10.1145/3302541.3311525acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Practices in Model Component Reuse for Efficient Dependability Analysis

Published:27 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Model-based dependability analysis provides an effective manner to evaluate and design the dependability of critical IT systems by abstracting the system architecture and operations. As the size and the complexity of systems increase, however, the process to compose the dependability model becomes complicated and time-consuming. Improving the efficiency of modeling process is practically an important challenge of dependability engineering. In this paper, we review the techniques for model component reuse that makes dependability model composition and analysis more efficient. In particular, component-based modeling approaches for reliability, availability, maintainability and safety analysis presented in the literature are summarized. In order to effectively apply model component reuse, we advocate the importance of asset-based dependability analysis approach that associates the reusable model components with underlying system development process. Finally, we discuss the necessary extensions of these techniques toward efficient dependability analysis for IoT systems which are significantly affecting real world.

References

  1. K. S. Trivedi and A. Bobbio, Reliability and availability engineering : modeling, analysis and applications, Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Avizienis, J.C. Laprie, B. Randell and C. Landwehr, Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing, IEEE Trans. on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K. S. Trivedi and R. Sahner, SHARPE at the age of twenty two, SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., vol. 36, no. 4, pp.52--57, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. G. Ciardo, J. Muppala, and K. S. Trivedi, SPNP: Stochastic Petri Net Package, In Proc. of the Third International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models, pp. 142--151, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Deavours, G. Clark, T. Courtney, D. Daly, S. Derisavi, J. M. Doyle, W. H. Sanders, and P. G. Webster, The Möbius framework and its implementation, IEEE Trans. on Softw. Eng., vol. 28, no. 10, pp.956--969, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. Kaiser, P. Liggesmeyer, and O. Mäckel. A new component concept for fault trees, In Proc. of the 8th Australian workshop on Safety critical systems and software, pp. 37--64, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Hofig, A. Joanni, M. Zeller, F. Montrone, M. Rothfelder, R. Amarnath, P. Munk, A. Nordmann, Model-based reliability and safety: reducing the complexity of safety analyses using component fault trees, In Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), pp. 1--7, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. W. E. Smith, K. S. Trivedi, L. Tomek, J. Ackeret, Availability analysis of multicomponent blade server systems, IBM Systems Jornal, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Kim, F. Machida, and K. S. Trivedi, Availability modeling and analysis of a virtualized system, In Proc. of IEEE Int'l Symp. Pacific Rim Dependable Computing (PRDC 2009), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. K. Molloy, Performance Analysis Using Stochastic Petri Nets, IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 913--917, 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. Florin, and S. Natkin, Evaluation based upon stochastic Petri nets of the maximum throughput of a full duplex protocol, Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Springer, pp. 280--288, 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. F. Meyer, A. Movaghar, and W. H. Sanders, Stochastic activity networks: Structure, behavior, and application, In Proc. International Workshop on Timed Petri Nets, pp. 106--115, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. W. H. Sanders and J. F. Meyer, Stochastic activity networks: For- mal definitions and concepts, In Lectures on Formal Methods and Performance Analysis, First EEF/Euro Summer School on Trends in Computer Science, ser. LNCS, no. 2090, pp. 315--343, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. S. Trivedi, Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing, and Computer Science Applications, John Wiley, New York, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. F. Machida, D. Kim, and K. S. Trivedi, Component-based availability modeling for cloud service management, In Supplemental Proc. of 21st International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. F. Machida, E. Andrade, D. Kim, K. S. Trivedi, Candy: component-based availability modeling framework for cloud service management using SysML, In. Proc. of Int'l Symp. on Reliable and Distributed Systems (SRDS), pp. 209--218, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner, A practical guide to SysML: systems modeling language, Morgan Kaufmann, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Andrade, M. Alves, R. Matos, B. Silva, P. Maciel, Openmads: an open source tool for modeling and analysis of distributed systems, In Proc. of International Conference on computer safety, reliability, and security. pp 277--284, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Distefano, M. Scarpa, and A. Puliafito, From UML to Petri nets: the PCM-based methodology, IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 65--79, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. E. Rugina, K. Kanoun, and M. Kaâniche, A system dependabiliy modeling framework using AADL and GSPNs, Architecting Dependable Systems IV, vol. 4615, LNCS, R. de Lemos, C. Gacek, and A. Romanovsky, Eds.: Springer-Verlag, pp. 14--38, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. Andrade, P. Maciel, G. Callou and B. Nogueira, A methodology for mapping sysML activity diagram to time Petri net for requirement validation of embedded real-time systems with energy constraints, In Proc. of the Third International Conference on Digital Society, pp. 266--271, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Xia, X. Yin, J. Alonso, F. Machida and K. S. Trivedi, Performance and Availability Modeling of IT Systems with Data Backup and Restore, IEEE Trans. on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 375--389, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. P. David, V. Idasiak, F. Kratz, Reliability study of complex physical systems using SysML, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 95, pp. 431--450, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. O. Daramola, T. Stalhane, G. Sindre and I. Omoronyia, Enabling hazard identification from requirements and reuse-oriented HAZOP analysis, In Proc. of 4th Int'l Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge (MARK), pp. 3--11, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. J. Zhao, L. Cui, L. Zhao, T. Qui, and B. Chen, Learning HAZOP expert system by case-based reasoning and ontology, Computer and Chemical Engineering, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 371--378, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. F. Machida, J. Xiang, K. Tadano, and S. Hosono, An asset-based development approach for availability and safety analysis on a flood alert system, In International Workshop on Recent Advances in the DependabIlity AssessmeNt of Complex systEms (RADIANCE), pp. 51--56, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. N. G. Leveson, Engineering a safer world: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety, MIT Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. P. Clements and L. Northrop, Software product lines: practices and patterns, SEI series in software engineering, Addison--Wesley, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Liu, J. Dehlinger, and R. Lutz, Safety analysis of software product lines using state-based modeling, Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 80, no. 11, pp. 1879--1892, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. A. L. Oliveira, R. Braga, P. C. Masiero, Y. Papadopoulos, I. Habli, T. Kelly, Model-based safety analysis of software product lines, International Journal of Embedded Systems, vol. 8 no. 5/6, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. I. Friedberg, K. McLaughlin, P. Smith, D. Laverty, and S. Sezer. STPA-SafeSec: Safety and security analysis for cyber-physical systems. Journal of Information Security and Applications, vol. 34, part 2, pp. 183--196, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. F. Meyer, On evaluating the performability of degradable computing systems, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 720--731, Aug, 1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. D. Wang, and K. Trivedi, Modeling user-perceived service availability, In Proc. of International Service Availability Symposium, pp. 107--122, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. S. Mondal, X. Yin, J. Muppala, J. Alonso Lopez, and K. Trivedi, Defects per million computation in service-oriented environments, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 32--46, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. F. Machida, M. Fujiwaka, S. Koizumi, and D. Kimura, Optimizing resiliency of distributed video surveillance system for safer city, In Supplemental Proc. of International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), pp. 17--20, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. J. D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world, New York: McGraw, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Practices in Model Component Reuse for Efficient Dependability Analysis

    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
      ICPE '19: Companion of the 2019 ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering
      March 2019
      99 pages
      ISBN:9781450362863
      DOI:10.1145/3302541

      Copyright © 2019 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 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: 27 March 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate252of851submissions,30%

      Upcoming Conference

    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader