Dohko: an autonomic system for provision, configuration, and management of inter-cloud environments based on a software product line engineering method

Abstract

International audienceConfiguring and executing applications across multiple clouds is a challenging task due to the various terminologies used by the cloud providers. Therefore, we advocate the use of autonomic systems to do this work automatically. Thus, in this paper, we propose and evaluate Dohko, an autonomic and goal-oriented system for inter-cloud environments. Dohko implements self-configuration, self-healing, and context-awareness properties. Likewise, it relies on a hierarchical P2P overlay (a) to manage the virtual machines running on the clouds and (b) to deal with inter-cloud communication. Furthermore, it depends on a software product line engineering method to enable applications’ deployment and reconfiguration, without requiring pre-configured virtual machine images. Experimental results show that Dohko can free the users from the duty of executing non-native cloud application on single and over many clouds. In particular, it tackles the lack of middleware prototypes that can support different scenarios when using simultaneous services from multiple clouds

Understanding the challenges and novel architectural models of multi-cloud native applications – a systematic literature review

“…In particular, we present an overview of the body of knowledge found as a result of this review (considering the 88 finally selected primary studies). The primary studies were classified according to the research method used in the study, as defined in Hybrid Cloud (public vs. private) [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] IoT or physical nodes [53][54][55][56] Different cloud services from different cloud providers [8,17,26,29,31,34,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] Multi-cloud in a broader sense [74][75][76] Federated Cloud Services [17,32,[77][78][79][80][81] Multi-cloud Services Communities [82] opinion pap...…”

“…From the primary studies analysed, more than the 40% of them did not provide a specific definition of the term multi-cloud, using the term without specifying its actual meaning in the context of the work presented. From the ones which did provide such a definition or explanation (the references included in Table 6), most used the term multi-cloud [8,17,26,29,31,34,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] for defining cloud services that were provided by different cloud services providers (29%). A significant number of these studies explicitly mentioned the lack of third-party services or any other intermediate layer providing federation mechanisms between these services [57,66].…”

“…From the ones which did provide such a definition or explanation (the references included in Table 6), most used the term multi-cloud [8,17,26,29,31,34,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] for defining cloud services that were provided by different cloud services providers (29%). A significant number of these studies explicitly mentioned the lack of third-party services or any other intermediate layer providing federation mechanisms between these services [57,66]. In this category, one of the studies [17] referred to both types of multi-cloud, with and without federation.…”

“…Close to 11% of the analysed literature state that they have implemented a multi-cloud application using a loosely coupled architecture, based on microservices and implemented through containers [31,32,55,56,63,66,84,85,90,93,94]. To this end, loosely coupled architectures are applied to different domains, such as IoT [55], fog computing [32], or osmotic computing [66].…”

Automated analysis of feature models: Quo vadis?

“…Variability intensive systems analysis [28,46,55,56,57,65,68,73,84,86,87,91,94,119,120,134,153,156,167,178,190,204,213,214,232,244,259,267,269] 29 Figure 9 shows the evolution of the different trends depending on the year of publication. In the y axis, the percentage of papers per year of each variability context facet is presented which can show the interest of the facet in the corresponding year.…”