4.6 Article

Preventing Temporal Violations in Scientific Workflows: Where and How

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 805-825

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2010.99

关键词

Workflow management; exception handling; reliability; software verification; statistical methods

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP0990393]
  2. State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs of China [P201100001]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61170192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to the dynamic nature of the underlying high-performance infrastructures for scientific workflows such as grid and cloud computing, failures of timely completion of important scientific activities, namely, temporal violations, often take place. Unlike conventional exception handling on functional failures, nonfunctional QoS failures such as temporal violations cannot be passively recovered. They need to be proactively prevented through dynamically monitoring and adjusting the temporal consistency states of scientific workflows at runtime. However, current research on workflow temporal verification mainly focuses on runtime monitoring, while the adjusting strategy for temporal consistency states, namely, temporal adjustment, has so far not been thoroughly investigated. For this issue, two fundamental problems of temporal adjustment, namely, where and how, are systematically analyzed and addressed in this paper. Specifically, a novel minimum probability time redundancy-based necessary and sufficient adjustment point selection strategy is proposed to address the problem of where and an innovative genetic-algorithm-based effective and efficient local rescheduling strategy is proposed to tackle the problem of how. The results of large-scale simulation experiments with generic workflows and specific real-world applications demonstrate that our temporal adjustment strategy can remarkably prevent the violations of both local and global temporal constraints in scientific workflows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据