optimal service selection policies for
play

Optimal service selection policies for dynamic service composition - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Optimal service selection policies for dynamic service composition Miroslav ivkovi University of Amsterdam (UvA) System and Network Engineering Group m.zivkovic@uva.nl Joost Bosman, Hans van den Berg, Rob van der Mei, Erik Meeuwissen,


  1. Optimal service selection policies for dynamic service composition Miroslav Živković University of Amsterdam (UvA) System and Network Engineering Group m.zivkovic@uva.nl Joost Bosman, Hans van den Berg, Rob van der Mei, Erik Meeuwissen, Rudesindo Núñez-Queija

  2. • M. Živković , J. Bosman, H. van den Berg, R. van der Mei, H. Meeuwissen, R. Núñez-Queija: Run-time Revenue Maximization for Composite Web Services with Response Time Commitments (AINA 2012) • M. Živković, H. van den Berg: Revenue Optimization of Service Compositions using Conditional Request Retries (IJWSR 2013)

  3. Service Composition problem Given abstract workflow select concrete services to execute it Services implementing task 1 Services implementing task 2 Service B Service K t: p: t: p: Service A t: p: Task 2 Task 4 Task 1 Task 3 Service α t: p: Service Y Service X Service β t: p: t: p: t: p: Services implementing task 4 Services implementing task 3

  4. Service composition • We focus on orchestration • At design time (multi-objective problem) – Choices made upfront; non-dominated, Pareto-optimal solutions – Inflexible; impossible to modify on-the-fly • At execution time: – Composition choices are made on-the-fly, flexible

  5. What if performance worsens? • Runtime service selection • Runtime service substitution

  6. Runtime service selection: Model request 1 composition: CS2(1) CS1(2)-CS2(2)-CS3(1)- CS4(1) CS1(1) response CS4(1) 1 CS2(2) request 1 CS1(2) CS3(1) request 2 CS2(3) CS4(2) response 2 CS1(3) request 2 composition CS2(4) Runtime service selection • Sequential workflow • Composition may be adapted during execution (per request/task) • Use of elapsed time info

  7. The orchestrator • knows the workflow • selects appropriate services • makes appropriate Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with 3 rd party providers and its clients • has no impact to or control of 3 rd party domains • End-to-end SLA • response time deadline ( 𝜀 𝑞 ) • Reward when response time ≤ 𝜀 𝑞 , penalty otherwise • Single service SLA – Execution cost, response time distribution

  8. Optimized dynamic decisions • Given CS2(1) i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 CS1(1) – Position in workflow CS4(1) CS2(2) ? CS1(2) CS3(1) – Remaining time until deadline CS2(3) CS4(2) CS1(3) – Response time distributions CS2(4) Δ – Costs, reward and penalty • Decision – what service alternative to select based on the elapsed time? • Goal – Optimize expected revenue • Solution Apply Dynamic Programming

  9. Lookup Table Policy { Abstract service at position 1 Concrete service alternative 4 { Abstract service at position 2 Concrete service alternative 3 { Abstract service at position 3 Concrete service alternative 2 { Abstract service at position 4 Concrete service alternative 1 0 5 10 15 D p Overall deadline t (time budget) • Simple solution • Calculate lookup table off-line • Apply lookup table on-line (no computing)

  10. Example workflow, 4 tasks 50 DP Dynamic Static SW 40 E[Revenue] 30 A B C D E F G 20 10 0 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Position 1 4 4 4 4 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 Position 2 2 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 Position 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 Position 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

  11. Issue 1: sequential workflow CS2(2) f 4,1 ; c 4,1 f 2,1 ; c 2,1 K CS1(2) CS2(1) p 4 CS4(1) CS1(1) WS3 p 5 f 1,1 ; CS3(1) CS5(1) f 3,1 ; c 3,1 f 6,1 ; c 1,1 f 5,1 ;c 5,1 c 6,1 CS3(2) CS5(2) CS3(3) CS1(1) AWS 6 AWS 2,3 AWS 4,5

  12. Issue 2 - availability request 1 composition: CS2(1) CS1(2)-CS2(2)-CS3(1)-CS4(1) CS1(1) response 1 CS4(1) CS2(2) request 1 B C D A CS1(2) CS3(1) request 2 CS2(3) CS4(2) response 2 CS1(3) request 2 composition CS2(4)

  13. Runtime service substitution: Model 2 𝐷𝑇 1 3 𝐷𝑇 1 4 𝐷𝑇 1 response 2 θ 2 request 1 𝐷𝑇 2 θ ' 1 𝐷𝑇 1 retry retry D C request 2 B 4 3 A 𝐷𝑇 2 𝐷𝑇 2 response 1 2 𝐷𝑇 3 • For an orchestrated service, at each decision point (A, B, C, D) • a) which service should be selected? • b) when is it optimal to perform substitution • c) which service should be selected for a retry, same or some other? • with the goal to maximize end-to-end expected revenue for given deadline

  14. Response-time: when does a substitution make sense? • Heavy-tailed response time distributions • Expectation paradox : “the longer we have waited, the longer we should expect to wait” • Bimodal/Multimodal distributions • Substitute by any given service • This does not involve the costs

  15. Optimal solution • Use dynamic programming to calculate the policy: • Compare the expected revenues with and without retry • Formulae for case when single retry per each task is allowed • Task i, service j, deadline 𝜀 , retry moment 𝜄 , response time distribution f, F, revenue W • term 1: execution cost; term 2 – no retry needed; term 3 – retry made

  16. Runtime service substitution - conclusions • For larger values of deadlines, policies with or without retries are close • Perform substitution for the last tasks – Cost plays a role: the more you pay the less substitutions you should perform

  17. Issue 3 – time invariant PDF: Closed loop control • For each alternative response time distribution: keep last n samples • Calculate empirical distribution(s) • Apply DP on empirical distributions Challenges 1. We do not prefer updating the policy after each realization 2. When a certain alternative is never selected we don’t observe changes Solutions 1. Apply statistical test to see weather an empirical distribution has changed significantly 2. If a service is not used for (specified) time interval send a probe request (and pay corresponding cost); • Tradeoff: short interval (good + expensive) vs. large interval

  18. Thank you!

Recommend


More recommend