No Access

On Representing Resilience Requirements of Microservice Architecture Systems

Kanglin Yin

School of Software Engineering, Tongji University, 4800 Cao’an Highway, Shanghai 201804, P. R. China

E-mail Address: 14_ykl@tongji.edu.cn

Search for more papers by this author

and

Qingfeng Du

School of Software Engineering, Tongji University, 4800 Cao’an Highway, Shanghai 201804, P. R. China

E-mail Address: du_cloud@tongji.edu.cn

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194021500261Cited by:10 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Together with the spread of DevOps practices and container technologies, Microservice Architecture has become a mainstream architecture style in recent years. Resilience is a key characteristic in Microservice Architecture (MSA) Systems, and it shows the ability to cope with various kinds of system disturbances which cause degradations of services. However, due to lack of consensus definition of resilience in the software field, although a lot of work has been done on resilience for MSA Systems, developers still do not have a clear idea on how resilient an MSA System should be, and what resilience mechanisms are needed.

In this paper, by referring to existing systematic studies on resilience in other scientific areas, the definition of microservice resilience is provided and a Microservice Resilience Measurement Model is proposed to measure service resilience. And a requirement model to represent resilience requirements of MSA Systems is given. The requirement model uses elements in KAOS to represent notions in the measurement model, and decompose service resilience goals into system behaviors that can be executed by system components. As a proof of concept, a case study is conducted on an MSA System to illustrate how the proposed models are applied.

Keywords:

References

1. M. Fowler and J. Lewis, Microservices, ThoughtWorks (2014), http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html. Google Scholar
2. Todd Hoff, Lessons learned from scaling uber to 2000 engineers, 1000 services, and 8000 git repositories. Highscalability.com, 2016. http://highscalability.com/blog/2016/10/12/lessonslearned-from-scaling-uber-to-2000-engineers-1000-ser.html. Google Scholar
3. T. Mauro, Adopting microservices at netflix: Lessons for architectural design. Nginx.com, 2015. https://www.nginx.com/blog/microservices-at-netflix-architectural-best-practices. Google Scholar
4. S. Newman, Building Microservices (O’Reilly Media, 2015). Google Scholar
5. J. Humble and D. Farley, Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation (Adobe Reader) (Pearson Education, 2010). Google Scholar
6. L. Bass, I. Weber and L. Zhu, DevOps: A Software Architect’s Perspective (Addison-Wesley Professional, 2015). Google Scholar
7. A. Balalaie, A. Heydarnoori and P. Jamshidi, Microservices architecture enables DevOps: Migration to a cloud-native architecture, IEEE Softw. 33(3) (2016) 42–52. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. L. Hatton, Reexamining the fault density component size connection, IEEE Softw. 14(2) (1997) 89–97. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. F. Montesi and J. Weber, Circuit breakers, discovery, and API gateways in microservices, 2016, arXiv:1609.05830. Google Scholar
10. C. Esposito, A. Castiglione and K.-K. R. Choo, Challenges in delivering software in the cloud as microservices, IEEE Cloud Comput. 3(5) (2016) 10–14. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. H. S. Gunawi, M. Hao, R. O. Suminto, A. Laksono, A. D. Satria, J. Adityatama and K. J. Eliazar, Why does the cloud stop computing? Lessons from hundreds of service outages, in Proc. Seventh ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Marcos K. Aguilera, Brian Cooper and Yanlei Diao (eds.) (ACM, Santa Clara, CA, USA, October 5–7, 2016), pp. 1–16. Google Scholar
12. O. I. de Normalización, ISO-IEC 25010: 2011 Systems and Software Engineering-Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-System and Software Quality Models (ISO, 2011). Google Scholar
13. H. S. Gunawi, M. Hao, T. Leesatapornwongsa, T. Patanaanake, T. Do, J. Adityatama, K. J. Eliazar, A. Laksono, J. F. Lukman, V. Martin and A. D. Satria, What bugs live in the cloud? A study of 3000 + issues in cloud systems, in Proc. ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Ed Lazowska, Doug Terry, Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau and Johannes Gehrke (eds.) (ACM, Seattle, WA, USA, November 3–5, 2014), pp. 7:1–7:14. Google Scholar
14. H. S. Gunawi et al., Fail-slow at scale: Evidence of hardware performance faults in large production systems, ACM Trans. Storage (TOS) 14(3) (2018) 23. Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. E. Wolff, Microservices: Flexible Software Architecture (Addison-Wesley Professional, 2016). Google Scholar
16. I. Nadareishvili, R. Mitra, M. McLarty and M. Amundsen, Microservice Architecture: Aligning Principles, Practices, and Culture (O’Reilly Media, 2016). Google Scholar
17. P. Lollini, A. Bondavalli and M. Vadursi. Amber roadmap: Ongoing research directions, in 2013 IEEE 33rd Int. Conf. Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, June 2010), pp. 282–283. Google Scholar
18. R. Almeida and M. Vieira, Changeloads for resilience benchmarking of self-adaptive systems: A risk-based approach, in 2012 Ninth European Dependable Computing Conf. (EDCC), 2012, pp. 173–184. Crossref, Google Scholar
19. E. Evans, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software (Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004). Google Scholar
20. F. Rademacher, J. Sorgalla and S. Sachweh, Challenges of domain-driven microservice design: A model-driven perspective, IEEE Softw. 35(3) (2018) 36–43. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. C. S. Holling, Resilience and stability of ecological systems, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Systemat. 4(1) (1973) 1–23. Crossref, Google Scholar
22. A. W. Righi, T. A. Saurin and P. Wachs, A systematic literature review of resilience engineering: Research areas and a research agenda proposal, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 141 (2015) 142–152. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. S. Hosseini, K. Barker and J. E. Ramirez-Marquez, A review of definitions and measures of system resilience, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 (2016) 47–61. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. M. Ungar, Qualitative contributions to resilience research, Qual. Soc. Work 2(1) (2003) 85–102. Crossref, Google Scholar
25. M. Bruneau, S. E. Chang, R. T. Eguchi, G. C. Lee, T. D. O’Rourke, A. M. Reinhorn, M. Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W. A. Wallace and D. Von Winterfeldt, A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities, Earthq. Spectra 19(4) (2003) 733–752. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
26. D. Henry and J. E. Ramirez-Marquez, Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 99 (2012) 114–122. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. N. Yodo and P. Wang, Engineering resilience quantification and system design implications: A literature survey, J. Mech. Des. 138(11) (2016) 111408. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. N. Dragoni, S. Giallorenzo, A. L. Lafuente, M. Mazzara, F. Montesi, R. Mustafin and L. Safina, Microservices: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, in Present and Ulterior Software Engineering (Springer, 2017), pp. 195–216. Crossref, Google Scholar
29. N. Dragoni, I. Lanese, S. T. Larsen, M. Mazzara, R. Mustafin and L. Safina, Microservices: How to make your application scale, 2017, arXiv:1702.07149. Google Scholar
30. J. Brilhante, R. Costa and T. Maritan, Asynchronous queue based approach for building reactive microservices, in Proc. 23rd Brazillian Symp. Multimedia and the Web, 2017, pp. 373–380. Crossref, Google Scholar
31. J. Jenkins, G. Shipman, J. Mohd-Yusof, K. Barros, P. Carns and R. Ross, A case study in computational caching microservices for HPC, in 2017 IEEE Int. Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp. Workshops, 2017, pp. 1309–1316. Crossref, Google Scholar
32. Y. Niu, F. Liu and Z. Li, Load balancing across microservices, in IEEE INFOCOM 2018 – IEEE Conf. Computer Communications, 2018, pp. 198–206. Crossref, Google Scholar
33. M. Cinque, R. Della Corte, R. Iorio and A. Pecchia, An exploratory study on zeroconf monitoring of microservices systems, in 2018 14th European Dependable Computing Conf., 2018, pp. 112–115. Crossref, Google Scholar
34. F. Montesi and J. Weber, From the decorator pattern to circuit breakers in microservices, in Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Symp. Applied Computing, 2018, pp. 1733–1735. Crossref, Google Scholar
35. D. Richter, M. Konrad, K. Utecht and A. Polze, Highly-available applications on unreliable infrastructure: Microservice architectures in practice, in 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion, 2017, pp. 130–137. Crossref, Google Scholar
36. N. Kratzke, About microservices, containers and their underestimated impact on network performance, 2017, arXiv:1710.04049. Google Scholar
37. G. Toffetti, S. Brunner, M. Blöchlinger, F. Dudouet and A. Edmonds, An architecture for self-managing microservices, in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Automated Incident Management in Cloud, 2015, pp. 19–24. Crossref, Google Scholar
38. T. Soenen, W. Tavernier, D. Colle and M. Pickavet, Optimising microservice-based reliable NFV management & orchestration architectures, in 2017 9th Int. Workshop on Resilient Networks Design and Modeling, 2017, pp. 1–7. Crossref, Google Scholar
39. T. Zwietasch, Online failure prediction for microservice architectures, Master’s thesis (2017). Google Scholar
40. S. Haselböck, R. Weinreich and G. Buchgeher, Decision guidance models for microservices: Service discovery and fault tolerance, in Proc. Fifth European Conf. Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2017, p. 4. Crossref, Google Scholar
41. V. Heorhiadi, S. Rajagopalan, H. Jamjoom, M. K. Reiter and V. Sekar, Gremlin: Systematic resilience testing of microservices, in 2016 IEEE 36th Int. Conf. Distributed Computing Systems, 2016, pp. 57–66. Crossref, Google Scholar
42. A. Brogi, A. Canciani, D. Neri, L. Rinaldi and J. Soldani, Towards a reference dataset of microservice-based applications, in Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Formal Methods (Springer, 2017), pp. 219–229. Google Scholar
43. T. F. Düllmann and A. V. Hoorn, Model-driven generation of microservice architectures for benchmarking performance and resilience engineering approaches, in The ACM/SPEC, 2017, pp. 171–172. Crossref, Google Scholar
44. A. Van Lamsweerde, Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour, in Proc. Fifth IEEE Int. Symp. Requirements Engineering, 2001, pp. 249–262. Google Scholar
45. K. S. Rubin and A. Goldberg, Object behavior analysis, Commun. ACM 35(9) (1992) 48–62. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
46. A. Van Lamsweerde and E. Letier, From object orientation to goal orientation: A paradigm shift for requirements engineering, in Radical Innovations of Software and Systems Engineering in the Future, 2004, pp. 325–340. Crossref, Google Scholar
47. A. Dardenne, A. Van Lamsweerde and S. Fickas, Goal-directed requirements acquisition, Sci. Comput. Programming 20(1–2) (1993) 3–50. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
48. E. S. Yu, Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering, in Proc. Third IEEE Int. Symp. Requirements Engineering, 1997, pp. 226–235. Crossref, Google Scholar
49. P. Bresciani, A. Perini, P. Giorgini, F. Giunchiglia and J. Mylopoulos, Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology, Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 8(3) (2004) 203–236. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
50. A. I. Anton, Goal-based requirements analysis, in Proc. Second Int. Conf. Requirements Engineering, 1996, pp. 136–144. Crossref, Google Scholar
51. J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung and B. Nixon, Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: A process-oriented approach, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6) (1992) 483–497. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
52. A. Lapouchnian, Goal-oriented requirements engineering: An overview of the current research, University of Toronto, Thesis, 2005, pp. 1–32. Available on http://www.cs.toronto.edu/∼alexei/pub/Lapouchnian-Depth.pdf. Google Scholar
53. A. Rashid, P. Sawyer, A. Moreira and J. Araújo, Early aspects: A model for aspect-oriented requirements engineering, in Proc. IEEE Joint Int. Conf. Requirements Engineering, 2002, pp. 199–202. Crossref, Google Scholar
54. A. Van Lamsweerde and E. Letier, Integrating obstacles in goal-driven requirements engineering, in Proc. 20th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 1998, pp. 53–62. Crossref, Google Scholar
55. A. Van Lamsweerde and E. Letier, Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26(10) (2000) 978–1005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
56. A. Van Lamsweerde, Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models, in Proc. 26th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2004, pp. 148–157. Crossref, Google Scholar
57. H. Wang, S. Zhou and Q. Yu, Discovering web services to improve requirements decomposition, in 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. Web Services, 2015, pp. 743–746. Crossref, Google Scholar
58. S. Zardari and R. Bahsoon, Cloud adoption: A goal-oriented requirements engineering approach, in Int. Workshop on Software Engineering for Cloud Computing, 2011, pp. 29–35. Crossref, Google Scholar
59. L. Chung, T. Hill, O. Legunsen, Z. Sun, A. Dsouza and S. Supakkul, A goal-oriented simulation approach for obtaining good private cloud-based system architectures, J. Syst. Softw. 86(9) (2013) 2242–2262. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
60. R. G. Junior, T. Rolim, A. Sampaio and N. C. Mendonça, A multi-criteria approach for assessing cloud deployment options based on non-functional requirements, in Proc. 30th Annual ACM Symp. Applied Computing, 2015, pp. 1383–1389. Crossref, Google Scholar
61. S. Patil and R. Ade, Cloud data security for goal driven global software engineering projects, Procedia Comput. Sci. 46 (2015) 548–557. Crossref, Google Scholar
62. J.-C. Deprez, R. Ramdoyal and C. Ponsard, Integrating energy and eco-aware requirements engineering in the development of services-based applications on virtual clouds, in First Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Sustainable Systems, 2012, pp. 1–7. Google Scholar
63. L. Duboc, E. Letier and D. S. Rosenblum, Systematic elaboration of scalability requirements through goal-obstacle analysis, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(1) (2013) 119–140. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
64. S. Zardari, R. Bahsoon and A. Ekárt, Cloud adoption: Prioritizing obstacles and obstacles resolution tactics using AHP, in Symp. Applied Computing, 2014, pp. 1013–1020. Crossref, Google Scholar
65. S. Zardari, F. Faniyi and R. Bahsoon, Using obstacles for systematically modeling, analysing, and mitigating risks in cloud adoption, in Aligning Enterprise, System, and Software Architectures (IGI Global, 2013), pp. 275–296. Crossref, Google Scholar
66. P. Clements, D. Garlan, L. Bass, J. Stafford, R. Nord, J. Ivers and R. Little, Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond (Pearson Education, 2002). Google Scholar
67. K. J. Hole, Anti-fragile ICT Systems (Springer, 2016). Google Scholar
68. C. M. Nguyen, R. Sebastiani, P. Giorgini and J. Mylopoulos, Multi-objective reasoning with constrained goal models, Requir. Eng. 23(2) (2018) 189–225. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
69. A. Lamsweerde, Kaos tutorial, Objectiver (2003), http://www.objectiver.com/fileadmin/download/documents/KaosTutorial.pdf. Google Scholar
70. M. Garriga, Towards a taxonomy of microservices architectures, in Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Formal Methods, 2017, pp. 203–218. Google Scholar
71. C. M. Aderaldo, N. C. Mendonca, C. Pahl and P. Jamshidi, Benchmark requirements for microservices architecture research, in 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Establishing the Community-Wide Infrecaseructure for Architecture-Based Software Engineering (ECASE@ICSE) (IEEE, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 22, 2017), pp. 8–13. Google Scholar
72. B. Beyer, C. Jones, J. Petoff and N. R. Murphy, Site Reliability Engineering: How Google Runs Production Systems (O’Reilly Media, 2016). Google Scholar