2012
DOI: 10.1109/tse.2011.3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Extensible Framework for Improving a Distributed Software System's Deployment Architecture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
90
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
90
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, a DSPL may exploit knowledge and context profiling as a learning capability for autonomic product evolution by enhancing self-adaptation (Abbas et al, 2011). However, in the era of post-deployment evolution (Malek et al, 2012), where embedded systems can change and be deployed several times, DSPLs offer a solution for software-intensive and embedded system families as they provide dynamic variability mechanisms. There are many embedded systems and application domains where runtime variability can play a key role in order to support the "autonomic" condition (Kephart and Chess, 2003) and manage system capabilities autonomously and dynamically.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, a DSPL may exploit knowledge and context profiling as a learning capability for autonomic product evolution by enhancing self-adaptation (Abbas et al, 2011). However, in the era of post-deployment evolution (Malek et al, 2012), where embedded systems can change and be deployed several times, DSPLs offer a solution for software-intensive and embedded system families as they provide dynamic variability mechanisms. There are many embedded systems and application domains where runtime variability can play a key role in order to support the "autonomic" condition (Kephart and Chess, 2003) and manage system capabilities autonomously and dynamically.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second, more formal approach for evaluating the generated deployment alternative is to compare the generated alternative with another deployment alternative (Aleti et al, 2009a;Malek et al, 2012). The S-IDE tool provides a quality evaluation tool that enables the comparison of two deployment models with respect to given simulation execution configurations.…”
Section: Feasibility Of the Generated Deployment Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The goal of the algorithm is to make a tradeoff between user's acceptable service level and the user utilities. Greedy [1] is another configuration algorithm proposed for the systems with changeable parameters such as network disconnection rates or bandwidth. A fitness function is calculated for each service on each host and the service with maximum fitness is selected and assigned.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This function represents the overall satisfaction of the users with the QoS delivered by the system. The last algorithm is based on genetic algorithms [1]. Each individual is a solution which represents a service assignment.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation