Скачать презентацию September 12 -15 2004 Philadelphia Marriott Скачать презентацию September 12 -15 2004 Philadelphia Marriott

c3c8fe7008f150d3f4d197beaec7f35b.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 44

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Quality of Service September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Quality of Service Tuesday, 14: 00, 14 Sept 2004 Karl Schopmeyer k. [email protected] org V 1. 1, 14 Sept 2004

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Agenda • • Introduction September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Agenda • • Introduction Objectives Overview of the Architecture Technologies involved State of the Standards What we need to make AQOS work Future Directions for AQOS

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Overview The Objective Increasing September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Overview The Objective Increasing QUALITY while decreasing COST of the services you provide. Some of thhe Issues • Resolve bottlenecks quickly or better yet, prevent them from happening. • Make sure important users not waiting • Let the right apps get through and not break the network • Make efficient use of resources and have flexibility to move them quickly to where they are required AQRM – Application Quality and Resource Management An open management framework that all component providers, applications or hardware, can plug their own product into and work together with all other components to deliver priority tasks and adjust to meet critical workloads based on policy from a business viewpoint.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania AQRM Work Group • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania AQRM Work Group • Work Group of the Open Group Enterprise Management Forum – Application Quality and Resource Management • Actively working with DMTF WGs – Application Management Work Group – Policy Work Group – Etc. • Participating in CIM/WBEM Implementations

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Charter Overview - AQRM September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Charter Overview - AQRM • Understand the current state of the industry regarding Application Quality & Resource Management • Develop a framework for the accomplishment of automated Application Quality & Resource Management • Identify the standards and open tools that fill the needs of the framework • Identify gaps that need to be filled • Provide solutions for the gaps or challenge other organizations working in closely related fields to fill the gaps

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A Perception of The September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A Perception of The Solution • AQRM is about management, not monitoring • AQRM is a value-add management function – Build on existing management – Do not duplicate what exists – Depend on the existence of effective instrumentation (networks, applications, systems) • AQRM is an abstraction – Requires management concepts that allow abstracting information to the resource management model – Abstract from managed elements to resource view • AQRM must be based on standards • AQRM is only one component of the general management solution (e. g. it must work with other FCAPS management components).

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Major AQRM Objectives September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Major AQRM Objectives • To develop: – a set of architecture principles, – profiles of standards, and – appropriate standards for an adaptive approach to measuring and controlling the Quality of Experience and the Quality of Service of existing and new applications across one or more real-time* enterprises. • Includes: – Recognition/acceptance/endorsement of an adaptive approach to managing distributed applications. – Industry ratification of architecture principles and profiles of standards for the above objective. – Identification of standards gaps and an action plan to close gaps. – Ensure management interoperability, across management domains, and plug-and-play integration, within resource domains.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Applications and Resources September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Applications and Resources

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The AQRM Functional Model September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The AQRM Functional Model Control Analysis & Decision Resources Monitor

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Integrating Standard Management Functionality September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Integrating Standard Management Functionality into the Model Behavioral Control Analysis & Decision SLAs Common Management Instrumentation Infrastructure s Po e ici l Monitor AQRM Abstractions Resources

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A Management Approach For September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A Management Approach For AQRM Components: • Application Management • Network Management • Storage Management • Server Management • Database Management • Application Management Common Low-Level Elements Web Services Management • – Manages the application and interfaces to underlying infrastructure Web Services – Manages Web services, including interfaces to network and database elements Database – Manages database elements, including server and storage interfaces, as well as elements required for distributed operation Server Management – Manages server system resources Storage Management – Manages storage disk / SAN elements Network Management – Manages the connections between all the systems and networks (including storage, as in the case of IP-SAN) Common Infrastructure – Manages the common elements required to facilitate disaggregated rack-based systems (e. g. , cabling, power, etc. )

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania What is required to September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania What is required to bring this together • Monitoring – – A common instrumentation infrastructure Information on performance of objects of interest to App management Application performance model A Service Measurement model • Control – Control of managed resources – A state and behavior control model so that behavior can be controled, not simply executed. • Analysis and Decision – – State model for managed resources Policy objectives models Mapping between objective level policies and decision implementation Abstraction between decision and Monitor/Control

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The components of AQRM September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The components of AQRM • A lot of things have to come together for AQRM to work: – – – Management of Networks, Systems, etc. Management of Applications Management of information flow Measurement of Service oriented metrics Service Level concepts (SLAs, SLOs Policies

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania AQRM Basic Decisions • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania AQRM Basic Decisions • Use CIM as the modeling base – CIM is the only standards based management instrumentation that meets AQRM requirements. • Work with the CIM/WBEM groups to extend/complete the functionality needed for AQRM – – – SLAs Policy Application Management Behavior and State control Etc.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Early conclusions • This September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Early conclusions • This is not just a application problem. • This is not just a network or OS problem • Typically just a few of the many monitor variables are significantly indicative of service performance • Typically just a few of the many control variables available have a significant impact on service performance.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Measuring Service Time UOW September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Measuring Service Time UOW and ARM App Response time measurement API, ARM Client Client Network Response time measurement Is the Unit of Work (Uof. W) model App App App Servers App Component definition, performance and resource measurement – App runtime Model

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Modeling The Transaction - September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Modeling The Transaction - UOW • • Measure a time interval Identify the transaction Identify the application Provides information for correlation of multiple measurements • Provides information to understand component Uof. Work (parent/child units of work) • Provides metric information places for resource, etc. information • Marry with the instrumentation technology - ARM

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Unit of Work • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Unit of Work • Defines a type of work • Represents a UOW that has started and may have completed executing • Associated to a UOW definition • Provides information such as: – Response or elapsed time – Status • Active, Suspended, Completed (with status), Aborted – Metric Information about the UOW • Examples – Update account balance – Execute batch – Query Data server – Execute subroutine

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Status • UOW model September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Status • UOW model – Model Developed by DMTF Application Work Group – Corresponds today to ARM 1, 2, 3 – Working on ARM 4 equivalent model • ARM – ARM API for C and Java today (Open Group Standard – Version 4 extend model to more useful metrics, correlation.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Service Levels and Objectives September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Service Levels and Objectives • Service Level Agreement – Documented result of a negotiation between a customer/consumer and a provider of a service, that specifies the levels of availability, serviceability, performance, operation or other attributes of the service. [RFC 2475] • Service Level Objective – Partitions an SLA into individual metrics and operational information to enforce and/or monitor the SLA. It is a set of parameters and their values. The actions of enforcing and reporting monitored compliance can be implemented as one or more policies.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Intersections of SLAs and September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Intersections of SLAs and Management • Formalize SLA concepts of SLAs and their metrics – Standard and “exchangable” definitions • Monitor and programmatically enforce SLAs • Decompose high-level business SLAs to device/resource configurations and monitored parameters. – View the SLAs as goals • Define identity information to support per-customer billing and SLAs – Within and across boundaries • Define and enforce application-specific SLAs

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SLAs and Semantics • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SLAs and Semantics • SLAs require understanding of syntax and semantics – Describe what is managed and what happens when problems occur (e. g. policies) • SLAs cannot go from general to specific without a general semantic framework – What does it mean to understand a specific application without understanding what an application is.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Service Level – Measuring September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Service Level – Measuring the User experience • Service levels are a measure of the user experience – – How much How fast How available How reactive to problems • SLAs define what will keep the user happy

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Management and SLAs September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Management and SLAs • Typical runtime service level parameters – User perspective on performance • Interactive responsiveness – Transaction Response time / Time to accomplish – Throughput / How many simultaneous users or how many things can be done in a defined time • Batch turnaround • Critical deadlines (e. g. end-of-month processing) – Availability • Percentage of time service is available • Maximum limits on service-down times • Other non-runtime SLA issues – Recoverability – Data Integrity – Problem responsiveness – Affordability

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Goals of Application Measurement September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Goals of Application Measurement • Provide Monitors for – Service Level management • Need information and controls so that analysis can be done and decisions made and implemented – Business and Business Process management • Provide Application Controls for – Fault Determination – Performance characteristic attribution – Application monitor, management and manipulation in terms of application components, aggregation into whole to support SLOs OR • Monitor to provide information for SLA reporting • Provide controls for SLA tuning • Provide means to find why not meeting SLAs It is not enough to know you have a problem if you do not know why or how to solve the problem. It is even more worthless to have a means for defining SLAs. And SLOs and no means to measure them on the system.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania What are Applications? • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania What are Applications? • Complex collections of software components • Multilayered functionally – E. g. Presentation, application, database, etc. • Dynamically assembled • GOALS – Model the components as viewed in runtime including the interactions – Aggregate the information into the whole – Disaggregate information from whole into the components

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Runtime Management • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Runtime Management • Model being developed by DMTF Application Work Group app deployable installable executable running status transport sub -model setup installation initial life cycle runtime Requirements: Architecture, Management, Manageability, Meta

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Runtime Manageability Requirements September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Runtime Manageability Requirements • • • Define logical runtime structure of complex applications Define Application components/layers Support distributed and dynamic applications Relate physical structures and logical runtime structures Model usage of system resources as viewed by the application Model dataflow between components and applications and between applications Relate Unit of Work information to runtime structure Allow monitor and control of application state Support fault management Aggregate information from components to the whole

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Modeling FCAPS • Fault September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Modeling FCAPS • Fault – Indications – Error and status properties (counter, information) – Log-entries, traces, etc. • Performance – Base metrics (IO, timebound metrics, etc. ) – Uo. W – Metric properties – Statistics • Configuration – Persistent configuration information: configuration, settings – Control: methods – Current configuration: object properties, support classes, associations

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania App Runtime Model Concepts September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania App Runtime Model Concepts (Simplified)

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Model Hierarchy Application September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Application Model Hierarchy Application Management Model Application Runtime Model System Sub-Model Structure Sub-Model Function Sub-Model Application Deployment Model Data Sub-Model External Systems Sub-Model . . . • In development today • Application System submodel (CIM 2. 8) • Components of Function submodel (CIM 2. 9 prelim) • Data submodel, structure submodel planned for future CIM verisons (2. 10, etc. )

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SLAs, SLOs and Policy September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SLAs, SLOs and Policy Service Level Agreements Manual Translation Contractual – Based on Business Process and requirements Incorporates Service Level Objectives Service Level Metrics Service Level Policy Specification Common expression and Metrics Enforces Element Policy Refinement • Decompose service into elements Create, Update, Maintain Policy Management Model, schema, access methods, Error detection, recovery, creation Deletion, mod, security, etc.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Policy • Why is September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Policy • Why is Policy important – automation – encapsulating management tasks, expressing a desired state or result to be achieved. – Policy can be used to express quality of service parameters to meet required service levels. • Model developed by DMTF Policy and Service Level Work Group • New work includes – Generic conditions (query based) – Generic actions • Issues – Aggregation and disaggregation – Language as an alternative to models.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Behavior and State • September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Behavior and State • Objective – Extend CIM to allow expressing behavior, behavior control, and interobject behavior • State and State Control – Allow model to define states and to define allowable state transitions – Provide means for Actions on other components of the model to be defined as part of state transition (Actions) • Definition of interopbject Actions – Possibly common with Policy • B&H work group in DMTF today. In process of defining mechanisms for state transition and actions definitions as extensions to CIM model.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The AQRM Functional Model September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The AQRM Functional Model Control Decision Process Resources Monitor

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Growth of the Information September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Growth of the Information model to a Management model Managed Services From Information model To information and behavior model Management Services Managed Services Model (tomorrow) Managed Services Model Manageability Objects (Today)

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Object Model This September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Object Model This will be a Key interface Between the QOS objects And the resource Objects. Typically The resource Objects will be Dynamically Created and deleted And the QOS Objects must Support this. Pol icy QOS Management Model Detailed Resource Management Objects (NOTE: This is effectively the majority of the Current CIM model) Resources

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Some Characteristics of the September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Some Characteristics of the AQRM model • AQRM Decision Making – Based on abstractions that support the QOS concepts and define policies that operate on the controls based on the monitors. • Policy Objects • Scripts • State management • AQRM Objects – Represent concepts like; • Capacity • Throughput • Latency • Queue Length. – In effect a network of queues – Every step up through the model we are abstracting the information required for QOS. Note that the relationships is the way this is accomplished.

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Model Components for September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Model Components for AQRM Objective Policy (SLO, etc) Action Policy Map Policy to Resource Application Model SNMP Current CIM Model(s) Resources SNMP

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Conclusions • AQRM is September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Conclusions • AQRM is based on CIM and will extend CIM models • AQRM depends on the existence of widely used common instrumentation implementations that interoperate

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Working Together Application model September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Working Together Application model DMTF Application WG DMTF Policy WG Policy and SLA Open. Group AQRM WG Other DMTF WGs, Oasis WSDM, … SLAs, Service Approach DMTF Utility WG DMTF Behavior and State WG

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Next Steps • Continue September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Next Steps • Continue working with these groups to develop the components needed by AQRM • Define preliminary models for AQRM concepts to allow us to demonstrate better what we are trying to accomplish Join Us

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania AQRM Application Quality / September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania AQRM Application Quality / Resource Management and The Open Group Home http: //www. opengroup. org/ About http: //www. opengroup. org/overview/index. htm Membership List of Members Forums Enterprise Mgmt ARM AQRM http: //www. opengroup. org/member/ http: //www. opengroup. org/overview/members/me mbership_list. htm http: //www. opengroup. org/forums/ http: //www. opengroup. org/management/ http: //www. opengroup. org/tech/management/arm/ http: //www. opengroup. org/aqrm/

September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Questions? September 12 -15, 2004 • Philadelphia Marriott • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Questions?