Eos: An Approach of Using Behavior Implications for Policy-Based Self-Management

  • Sandeep Uttamchandani
  • Carolyn Talcott
  • David Pease
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2867)


Systems are becoming exceedingly complex to manage. As such, there is an increasing trend towards developing systems that are self-managing. Policy-based infrastructures have been used to provide a limited degree of automation, by associating actions to system-events. In the context of self-managing systems, the existing policy-specification model fails to capture the following: a) The impact of a rule on system behavior (behavior implications). This is required for automated decision-making. b) Learning mechanisms for refining the invocation heuristics by monitoring the impact of rules.

This paper proposes Eos; An approach to enhance the existing policy-based model with behavior implications. The paper gives details of the following aspects:

* Expressing behavior implications.

* Using behavior implications of a rule for learning and automated decision-making.

* Enhancing existing policy-based infrastructures to support self-management using Eos.

The paper also describes an example of using Eos for self-management within a distributed file-system.


Policy Decision Point Distribute File System Specification Template Candidate Rule Policy Enforcement Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    The IETF Policy Framework Working Group,
  2. 2.
    The GridWeaver Project,
  3. 3.
    Sabata, B., Chatterjee, S., Davis, M., Sydir, J., Lawrence, T.: Taxonomy for QoS Specifications. In: Workshop on Object-oriented Real-time Dependable Systems, WORDS (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feitelson, D., Naaman, M.: Self-Tuning Systems. IEEE Software 16(2), 52–60 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verma, D.: Simplifying Network Administration using Policy based Management. IEEE Network Magazine (March 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamb, E.: Hardware Spending Matters. Red Herring, 22–32 (June 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zinky, J.A., Bakken, D.E., Schantz, R.D.: Architectural Support for Quality-of-Service for CORBA objects. Theory and Practice of Object Systems 3(1) (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barnes, J.F., Pandey, R.: CacheL: Language Support for Customizable Caching Policies. In: Proc. of Web Caching Workshop (WCW) (March 1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray, J.: What Next? A Dozen Information-Technology Research Goals, ACM Turing Award Lecture, MS-TR-99-50 (June 1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoagland, J.: Specifying and Implementing Security Policies Using LaSCO, the Language for Security Constraints on objects. Ph.D. Dissertation, UC Davis (March 2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matthews, J., Roselli, D., Costello, A., Wang, R., Anderson, T.: Improving the performance of log-structured file systems with adaptive methods. In: Proc. of ACM SOSP (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilkes, J., Golding, R., Staelin, C., Sullivan, T.: The HP AutoRAID hierarchical storage system. In: ACM TOCS, pp. 108–136 (February 1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bearden, M., Garg, S., Lee, W.: Integrating Goal Specification in Policy-Based Management. In: Sloman, M., Lobo, J., Lupu, E.C. (eds.) POLICY 2001. LNCS, vol. 1995, pp. 153–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seltzer, M., Small, C.: Self-monitoring and self-adapting operating systems. In: Proc. of HOTOS Conf., pp. 124–129 (May 1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sloman, M., Lupu, E.: Security and management policy specification. IEEE Network, 10–19 (March-April 2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen, N.: Don’t Waste Your Storage Dollars. Research Report, Gartner Group (March 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Damianou, N., Dulay, N., Lupu, E., Sloman, M.: Ponder: A Language for Specifying Security and Management Policies for Distributed Systems, Imperial College, UK, Research Report DoC 2001 (January 2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson, P., Scobie, A.: Large scale Linux configuration with LCFG. In: Proceedings of the Atlanta Linux Showcase, Berkeley, CA, pp. 363–372. Usenix (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Darimont, R., Dalor, E., Massonet, P., Van Lamsweerde, A.: GRAIL/KAOS: An Environment for Goal Driven Requirements Engineering. In: Proc. of International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 58–62 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaudhuri, S., Narasayya, V.: AutoAdmin. “what-if. index” analysis utility. In: Proc. of ACM SIGMOD Conf., pp. 367–378 (June 1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mullender, S.: Distributed Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salton, G., McGill, M.J.: Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw Hill, New York (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandeep Uttamchandani
    • 1
  • Carolyn Talcott
    • 2
  • David Pease
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Almaden Research CenterSan Jose
  2. 2.SRI InternationalMenlo Park

Personalised recommendations