Patent Grant
8365185
This invention relates, in general, to managing customer environments to provide support for business resiliency, and in particular, to using serialization to control execution of processes used in managing the environments.
Today, customers attempt to manually manage and align their availability management with their information technology (IT) infrastructure. Changes in either business needs or the underlying infrastructure are often not captured in a timely manner and require considerable rework, leading to an inflexible environment.
Often high availability solutions and disaster recovery technologies are handled via a number of disparate point products that target specific scopes of failure, platforms or applications. Integrating these solutions into an end-to-end solution is a complex task left to the customer, with results being either proprietary and very specific, or unsuccessful.
Customers do not have the tools and infrastructure in place to customize their availability management infrastructure to respond to failures in a way that allows for a more graceful degradation of their environments. As a result, more drastic and costly actions may be taken (such as a site switch) when other options (such as disabling a set of applications or users) could have been offered, depending on business needs.
Coordination across availability management and other systems management disciplines is either nonexistent or accomplished via non-reusable, proprietary, custom technology.
There is little predictability as to whether the desired recovery objective will be achieved, prior to time of failure. There are only manual, labor intensive techniques to connect recovery actions with the business impact of failures and degradations.
Any change in the underlying application, technologies, business recovery objectives, resources or their interrelationships require a manual assessment of impact to the hand-crafted recovery scheme.
Based on the foregoing, a need exists for a capability to facilitate management of an IT environment. In particular, a need exists for a capability that provides serialization to control execution of processes used to manage the environment.
The shortcomings of the prior art are overcome and additional advantages are provided through the provision of a computer-implemented method to manage processing within a computing environment. The method includes, for instance, programmatically providing, without user intervention, a plurality of categories of processes, the plurality of categories having a plurality of priorities associated therewith; and programmatically preventing execution of a process of one category, in response to detecting that a process of another category is executing, wherein the one category is of a lower priority than the another category.
Computer program products and systems relating to one or more aspects of the present invention are also described and claimed herein.
Additional features and advantages are realized through the techniques of the present invention. Other embodiments and aspects of the invention are described in detail herein and are considered a part of the claimed invention.
One or more aspects of the present invention are particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed as examples in the claims at the conclusion of the specification. The foregoing and other objects, features, and advantages of the invention are apparent from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
In managing a customer's environment, such as its business environment, there is a set of requirements unaddressed by existing technology, which causes unpredictable down time, large impact failures and recoveries, and significant extra labor cost, with resulting loss of business revenue. These requirements include, for instance:
The above set of requirements is addressed, however, by a Business Resiliency (BR) Management System, of which one or more aspects of the present invention are included. The Business Resiliency Management System provides, for instance:
One goal of the BR system is to allow customers to align their supporting information technology systems with their business goals for handling failures of various scopes, and to offer a continuum of recovery services from finer grained process failures to broader scoped site outages. The BR system is built around the idea of identifying the components that constitute a business function, and identifying successive levels of recovery that lead to more complex constructs as the solution evolves. The various recovery options are connected by an overall BR management capability that is driven by policy controls.
Various characteristics of one embodiment of a BR system include:
A Business Resilience System is capable of being incorporated in and used by many types of environments. One example of a processing environment to incorporate and use aspects of a BR system, including one or more aspects of the present invention, is described with reference to
Processing environment 100 includes, for instance, a central processing unit (CPU) 102 coupled to memory 104 and executing an operating system 106. Examples of operating systems include AIX® and z/OS®, offered by International Business Machines Corporation; Linux; etc. AIX® and z/OS® are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, N.Y., U.S.A. Other names used herein may be registered trademarks, trademarks or product names of International Business Machines Corporation or other companies.
The operating system manages execution of a Business Resilience Runtime Component 108 of a Business Resilience System, described herein, and one or more applications 110 of an application container 112.
As examples, processing environment 100 includes an IBM® System z™ processor or a pSeries® server offered by International Business Machines Corporation; a Linux server; or other servers, processors, etc. Processing environment 100 may include more, less and/or different components than described herein. (pSeries® is a registered trademark of International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, N.Y., USA.)
Another example of a processing environment to incorporate and use aspects of a BR System, including one or more aspects of the present invention, is described with reference to
As shown, a processing environment 200 includes for instance, a central processing complex 202 coupled to an input/output (I/O) subsystem 204. Central processing complex 202 includes, for instance, a central processing unit 206, memory 208, an operating system 210, a database management system 212, a Business Resilience Runtime Component 214, an application container 216 including one or more applications 218, and an I/O facility 220.
I/O facility 220 couples central processing complex 202 to I/O subsystem 204 via, for example, a dynamic switch 230. Dynamic switch 230 is coupled to a control unit 232, which is further coupled to one or more I/O devices 234, such as one or more direct access storage devices (DASD).
Processing environments 100 and/or 200 may include, in other embodiments, more, less and/or different components.
In yet another embodiment, a central processing complex 300 (
For example, network service 302 of central processing complex 300 is coupled to a switch 308 of network subsystem 306. Switch 308 is coupled to a switch 310 via routers 312 and firewalls 314. Switch 310 is further coupled to a network service 316 of processing environment 304.
Processing environment 304 further includes, for instance, a central processing unit 320, a memory 322, an operating system 324, and an application container 326 including one or more applications 328. In other embodiments, it can include more, less and/or different components.
Moreover, CPC 300 further includes, in one embodiment, a central processing unit 330, a memory 332, an operating system 334, a database management system 336, a Business Resilience Runtime Component 338, an application container 340 including one or more applications 342, and an I/O facility 344. It also may include more, less and/or different components.
I/O facility 344 is coupled to a dynamic switch 346 of an I/O subsystem 347. Dynamic switch 346 is further coupled to a control unit 348, which is coupled to one or more I/O devices 350.
Although examples of various environments are provided herein, these are only examples. Many variations to the above environments are possible and are considered within the scope of the present invention.
In the above-described environments, a Business Resilience Runtime Component of a Business Resilience System is included. Further details associated with a Business Resilience Runtime Component and a Business Resilience System are described with reference to
In one example, a Business Resilience System 400 is a component that represents the management of recovery operations and configurations across an IT environment. Within that Business Resilience System, there is a Business Resilience Runtime Component (402) that represents the management functionality across multiple distinct Recovery Segments, and provides the service level automation and the support of creation of the recovery sequences. In addition, there are user interface (404), administration (406), installation (408) and configuration template (410) components within the Business Resilience System that enable the administrative operations that are to be performed. Each of these components is described in further detail below.
Business Resilience Runtime Component 402 includes a plurality of components of the BR System that are directly responsible for the collection of observations, creation of PSEs, policy acceptance, validation, error detection, and formulation of recovery sequences. As one example, Business Resilience Runtime Component 402 includes the following components:
In addition to the Business Resilience Runtime Component of the BR system, the BR system includes the following components, previously mentioned above.
User Interface (UI) Component (404).
BR Admin Mailbox (406) (
BR Install Logic (408) (
Availability Configuration Templates (410):
The user interface, admin mailbox, install logic and/or template components can be part of the same computing unit executing BR Runtime or executed on one or more other distributed computing units.
To further understand the use of some of the above components and their interrelationships, the following example is offered. This example is only offered for clarification purposes and is not meant to be limiting in any way.
Referring to
As a result of these conditions leading up to runtime, the following subscriptions have already taken place:
These STEPs highlight one example of an error detection process:
In addition to the above, BR includes a set of design points that help in the understanding of the system. These design points include, for instance:
Goal Policy Support
BR is targeted towards goal based policies—the customer configures his target availability goal, and BR determines the preparatory actions and recovery actions to achieve that goal (e.g., automatically).
Availability management of the IT infrastructure through goal based policy is introduced by this design. The BR system includes the ability to author and associate goal based availability policy with the resource Recovery Segments described herein. In addition, support is provided to decompose the goal policy into configuration settings, preparatory actions and runtime procedures in order to execute against the deployed availability goal. In one implementation of the BR system, the Recovery Time Objective (RTO—time to recover post outage) is a supported goal policy. Additional goal policies of data currency (e.g., Recovery Point Objective) and downtime maximums, as well as others, can also be implemented with the BR system. Recovery Segments provide the context for association of goal based availability policies, and are the scope for goal policy expression supported in the BR design. The BR system manages the RTO through an understanding of historical information, metrics, recovery time formulas (if available), and actions that affect the recovery time for IT resources.
RTO goals are specified by the customer at a Recovery Segment level and apportioned to the various component resources grouped within the RS. In one example, RTO goals are expressed as units of time intervals, such as seconds, minutes, and hours. Each RS can have one RTO goal per Pattern System Environment associated with the RS. Based on the metrics available from the IT resources, and based on observed history and/or data from the customer, the RTO goal associated with the RS is evaluated for achievability, taking into account which resources are able to be recovered in parallel.
Based on the RTO for the RS, a set of preparatory actions expressed as a workflow is generated. This preparatory workflow configures the environment or makes alterations in the current configuration, to achieve the RTO goal or to attempt to achieve the goal.
In terms of optimizing RTO, there are tradeoffs associated with the choices that are possible for preparatory and recovery actions. Optimization of recovery choice is performed by BR, and may include interaction at various levels of sophistication with IT resources. In some cases, BR may set specific configuration parameters that are surfaced by the IT resource to align with the stated RTO. In other cases, BR may request that an IT resource itself alter its management functions to achieve some portion of the overall RS RTO. In either case, BR aligns availability management of the IT resources contained in the RS with the stated RTO.
Metrics and Goal Association
In this design, as one example, there is an approach to collecting the required or desired metrics data, both observed and key varying factors, system profile information that is slow or non-moving, as well as potential formulas that reflect a specific resource's use of the key factors in assessing and performing recovery and preparatory actions, historical data and system information. The information and raw metrics that BR uses to perform analysis and RTO projections are expressed as part of the IT resources, as resource properties. BR specific interpretations and results of statistical analysis of key factors correlated to recovery time are kept as BR Specific Management data (BRMD).
Relationships Used by BR, and BR Specific Resource Pairing Information
BR maintains specific information about the BR management of each resource pairing or relationship between resources. Information regarding the BR specific data for a resource pairing is kept by BR, including information such as ordering of operations across resources, impact assessment information, operation effect on availability state, constraint analysis of actions to be performed, effects of preparatory actions on resources, and requirements for resources to co-locate or anti-co-locate.
Evaluation of Failure Scope
One feature of the BR function is the ability to identify the scope and impact of a failure. The BR design uses a Containment Region to identify the resources affected by an incident. The Containment Region is initially formed with a fairly tight restriction on the scope of impact, but is expanded on receiving errors related to the first incident. The impact and scope of the failure is evaluated by traversing the resource relationships, evaluating information on BR specific resource pairing information, and determining most current state of the resources impacted.
Generation and Use of Workflow
Various types of preparatory and recovery processes are formulated and in some cases, optionally initiated. Workflows used by BR are dynamically generated based on, for instance, customer requirements for RTO goal, based on actual scope of failure, and based on any configuration settings customers have set for the BR system.
A workflow includes one or more operations to be performed, such as Start CICS, etc. Each operation takes time to execute and this amount of time is learned based on execution of the workflows, based on historical data in the observation log or from customer specification of execution time for operations. The workflows formalize, in a machine readable, machine editable form, the operations to be performed.
In one example, the processes are generated into Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) compliant workflows with activities that are operations on IT resources or specified manual, human activities. For example, BRM automatically generates the workflows in BPEL. This automatic generation includes invoking routines to insert activities to build the workflow, or forming the activities and building the XML (Extensible Mark-Up Language). Since these workflows are BPEL standard compliant, they can be integrated with other BPEL defined workflows which may incorporate manual activities performed by the operations staff. These BR related workflows are categorized as follows, in one example:
Since the set of BR actions described above modify existing IT environments, visibility to the actions that are taken by BR prior to the actual execution is provided. To gain trust in the decisions and recommendations produced by BR, the BR System can run in ‘advisory mode’. As part of advisory mode, the possible actions that would be taken are constructed into a workflow, similar to what would be done to actually execute the processes. The workflows are then made visible through standard workflow authoring tooling for customers to inspect or modify. Examples of BPEL tooling include:
BR tooling spans the availability management lifecycle from definition of business objectives, IT resource selection, availability policy authoring and deployment, development and deployment of runtime monitors, etc. In one example, support for the following is captured in the tooling environment for the BR system:
The policy lifecycle for BR goal policies, such as RTO goals, includes, for example:
One of the points in determining operational state of a Recovery Segment is that this design allows for customers to configure a definition of specific ‘aggregated’ states, using properties of individual IT resources. A Recovery Segment is an availability management context, in one example, which may include a diverse set of IT resources.
The customer may provide the rules logic used within the Recovery Segment to consume the relevant IT resource properties and determine the overall state of the RS (available, degraded and unavailable, etc). The customer can develop and deploy these rules as part of the Recovery Segment availability policy. For example, if there is a database included in the Recovery Segment, along with the supporting operating system, storage, and network resources, a customer may configure one set of rules that requires that the database must have completed the recovery of in-flight work in order to consider the overall Recovery Segment available. As another example, customers may choose to configure a definition of availability based on transaction rate metrics for a database, so that if the rate falls below some value, the RS is considered unavailable or degraded, and evaluation of ‘failure’ impact will be triggered within the BR system. Using these configurations, customers can tailor both the definitions of availability, as well as the rapidity with which problems are detected, since any IT resource property can be used as input to the aggregation, not just the operational state of IT resources.
Failure During Workflow Sequences of Preparatory, Recovery, Preventive
Failures occurring during sequences of operations executed within a BPEL compliant process workflow are intended to be handled through use of BPEL declared compensation actions, associated with the workflow activities that took a failure. The BR System creates associated “undo” workflows that are then submitted to compensate, and reset the environment to a stable state, based on where in the workflow the failure occurred.
Customer Values
The following set of customer values, as examples, are derived from the BR system functions described above, listed here with supporting technologies from the BR system:
Management of the IT environment is adaptively performed, as described herein and in a U.S. patent application “Adaptive Business Resiliency Computer System for Information Technology Environments,” (POU920070364US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/966,495, Bobak et al., co-filed herewith, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Many different sequences of activities can be undertaken in creating a BR environment. The following represents one possible sequence; however, many other sequences are possible. This sequence is provided merely to facilitate an understanding of a BR system and one or more aspects of the present invention. This sequence is not meant to be limiting in any way. In the following description, reference is made to various U.S. patent applications, which are co-filed herewith.
On receiving the BR and related product offerings, an installation process is undertaken. Subsequent to installation of the products, a BR administrator may define the configuration for BR manager instances with the aid of BRM configuration templates.
Having defined the BRM configuration a next step could be to define Recovery Segments as described in “Recovery Segments for Computer Business Applications,” (POU920070108US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,855, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Definition of a RS may use a representation of resources in a topology graph as described in “Use of Graphs in Managing Computing Environments,” (POU920070112US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,906, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
It is expected that customers will enable BR operation in “observation” mode for a period of time to gather information regarding key metrics and operation execution duration associated with resources in a RS.
At some point, sufficient observation data will have been gathered or a customer may have sufficient knowledge of the environment to be managed by BR. A series of activities may then be undertaken to prepare the RS for availability management by BR. As one example, the following steps may be performed iteratively.
A set of functionally equivalent resources may be defined as described in “Use of Redundancy Groups in Runtime Computer Management of Business Applications,” (POU920070113US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,877, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Specification of the availability state for individual resources, redundancy groups and Recovery Segments may be performed as described in “Use of Multi-Level State Assessment in Computer Business Environments,” (POU920070114US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,832, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Representations for the IT environment in which BR is to operate may be created from historical information captured during observation mode, as described in “Computer Pattern System Environment Supporting Business Resiliency,” (POU920070107US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,851, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. These definitions provide the context for understanding how long it takes to perform operations which change the configuration—especially during recovery periods.
Information on relationships between resources may be specified based on recommended best practices—expressed in templates—or based on customer knowledge of their IT environment as described in “Conditional Computer Runtime Control of an Information Technology Environment Based on Pairing Constructs,” (POU920070110US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,874, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Pairing processing provides the mechanism for reflecting required or desired order of execution for operations, the impact of state change for one resource on another, the effect execution of an operation is expected to have on a resource state, desire to have one subsystem located on the same system as another and the effect an operation has on preparing the environment for availability management.
With preliminary definitions in place, a next activity of the BR administrator might be to define the goals for availability of the business application represented by a Recovery Segment as described in “Programmatic Validation in an Information Technology Environment,” (POU920070111US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/966,619, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Managing the IT environment to meet availability goals includes having the BR system prioritize internal operations. The mechanism utilized to achieve the prioritization is described herein, in accordance with one or more aspects of the present invention.
Multiple operations are performed to prepare an IT environment to meet a business application's availability goal or to perform recovery when a failure occurs. The BR system creates workflows to achieve the required or desired ordering of operations, as described in “Dynamic Generation of Processes in Computing Environments,” (POU920070123US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,894, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
A next activity in achieving a BR environment might be execution of the ordered set of operations used to prepare the IT environment, as described in “Dynamic Selection of Actions in an Information Technology Environment,” (POU920070117US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,951, Bobak et al. which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Management by BR to achieve availability goals may be initiated, which may initiate or continue monitoring of resources to detect changes in their operational state, as described in “Real-Time Information Technology Environments,” (POU920070120US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,930, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Monitoring of resources may have already been initiated as a result of “observation” mode processing.
Changes in resource or redundancy group state may result in impacting the availability of a business application represented by a Recovery Segment. Analysis of the environment following an error is performed. The analysis allows sufficient time for related errors to be reported, insures gathering of resource state completes in a timely manner and insures sufficient time is provided for building and executing the recovery operations—all within the recovery time goal, as described in “Management Based on Computer Dynamically Adjusted Discrete Phases of Event Correlation,” (POU920070119US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,838, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
A mechanism is provided for determining if events impacting the availability of the IT environment are related, and if so, aggregating the failures to optimally scope the outage, as described in “Management of Computer Events in a Computer Environment,” (POU920070118US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,902, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Ideally, current resource state can be gathered after scoping of a failure. However, provisions are made to insure management to the availability goal is achievable in the presence of non-responsive components in the IT environment, as described in “Managing the Computer Collection of Information in an Information Technology Environment,” (POU920070121US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,917, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
With the outage scoped and current resource state evaluated, the BR environment can formulate an optimized recovery set of operations to meet the availability goal, as described in “Defining a Computer Recovery Process that Matches the Scope of Outage,” (POU920070124US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965, 862, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Formulation of a recovery plan is to uphold customer specification regarding the impact recovery operations can have between different business applications, as described in “Managing Execution Within a Computing Environment,” (POU920070115US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,913, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Varying levels of recovery capability exist with resources used to support a business application. Some resources possess the ability to perform detailed recovery actions while others do not. For resources capable of performing recovery operations, the BR system provides for delegation of recovery if the resource is not shared by two or more business applications, as described in “Conditional Actions Based on Runtime Conditions of a Computer System Environment,” (POU920070116US1), U.S. Ser. No. 11/965,897, Bobak et al., which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Having evaluated the outage and formulated a set of recovery operations, the BR system resumes monitoring for subsequent changes to the IT environment.
In support of mainline BR system operation, there are a number of activities including, for instance:
In order to build a BR environment that meets recovery time objectives, IT configurations within a customer's location are to be characterized and knowledge about the duration of execution for recovery time operations within those configurations is to be gained. IT configurations and the durations for operation execution vary by time, constituent resources, quantity and quality of application invocations, as examples. Customer environments vary widely in configuration of IT resources in support of business applications. Understanding the customer environment and the duration of operations within those environments aids in insuring a Recovery Time Objective is achievable and in building workflows to alter the customer configuration of IT resources in advance of a failure and/or when a failure occurs.
A characterization of IT configurations within a customer location is built by having knowledge of the key recovery time characteristics for individual resources (i.e., the resources that are part of the IT configuration being managed; also referred to as managed resources). Utilizing the representation for a resource, a set of key recovery time objective (RTO) metrics are specified by the resource owner. During ongoing operations, the BR manager gathers values for these key RTO metrics and gathers timings for the operations that are used to alter the configuration. It is expected that customers will run the BR function in “observation” mode prior to having provided a BR policy for availability management or other management. While executing in “observation” mode, the BR manager periodically gathers RTO metrics and operation execution durations from resource representations. The key RTO metrics properties, associated values and operation execution times are recorded in an Observation log for later analysis through tooling. Key RTO metrics and operation execution timings continue to be gathered during active BR policy management in order to maintain currency and iteratively refine data used to characterize customer IT configurations and operation timings within those configurations.
Examples of RTO properties and value range information by resource type are provided in the below table. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that additional, less, and/or different resource types, properties and/or value ranges may be provided.
A specific example of key RTO properties for a z/OS® image is depicted in
The z/OS® image has a set of RTO metrics associated therewith, as described above. Other resources may also have its own set of metrics. An example of this is depicted in
Further, in one example, the RTO properties from each of the resources that are part of the Recovery Segment for App A have been gathered by BR and formed into an “observation” for recording to the Observation log, as depicted at 850.
Resources have varying degrees of functionality to support RTO goal policy. Such capacity is evaluated by BR, and expressed in resource property RTOGoalCapability in the BRMD entry for the resource. Two options for BR to receive information operation execution timings are: use of historical data or use of explicitly customer configured data. If BR relies on historical data to make recovery time projections, then before a statistically meaningful set of data is collected, this resource is not capable of supporting goal policy. A mix of resources can appear in a given RS—some have a set of observations that allow classification of the operation execution times, and others are explicitly configured by the customer.
Calculation of projected recovery time can be accomplished in two ways, depending on customer choice: use of historical observations or use of customers input timings. The following is an example of values for the RTOGoalCapability metadata that is found in the BRMD entry for the resource that indicates this choice:
If the customer is in observation mode, then historical information is captured, regardless of whether the customer has indicated use of explicitly input timings or use of historical information.
The administrator can alter, on a resource basis, which set of timings BR is to use. The default is to use historical observations. In particular, a change source of resource timing logic is provided that alters the source that BR uses to retrieve resource timings. The two options for retrieving timings are from observed histories or explicitly from admin defined times for operation execution. The default uses information from the observed histories, gathered from periodic polls. If the customer defines times explicitly, the customer can direct BR to use those times for a given resource. If activated, observation mode continues and captures information, as well as running averages, and standard deviations. The impact to this logic is to alter the source of information for policy validation and formulation of recovery plan.
With respect to the historical observations, there may be a statistically meaningful set of observations to verify. The sample size should be large enough so that a time range for each operation execution can be calculated, with a sufficient confidence interval. The acceptable number of observations to qualify as statistically meaningful, and the desired confidence interval are customer configurable using BR UI, but provided as defaults in the BRMD entry for the resource. The default confidence interval is 95%, in one example.
There are metrics from a resource that are employed by BR to enable and perform goal management. These include, for instance:
There is also a set of information about the resource that is employed—this information is provided as defaults in the BRMD entry for the resource, but provided to the BR team in the form of best practices information/defaults by the domain owners:
In addition to the resources defined herein as part of the IT configuration that is managed, there are other resources, referred to herein as assessed resources. Assessed resources are present primarily to provide observation data for PSE formation, and to understand impact(s) on managed resources. They do not have a decomposed RTO associated with them nor are they acted on for availability by BR. Assessed resources have the following characteristics, as examples:
Similarly, there are likely scenarios where a resource exists in a customer environment that already has an alternative availability management solution, and does not require BR for its availability. However, since other resources that are managed by BR may be dependent on them, they are observed and assessed in order to collect observation data and understand their impacts on managed resources. Additionally, there may be resources that do not have alternative management solutions, but the customer simply does not want them managed by BR, but other managed resources are dependent upon them. They too are classified as assessed resources.
These assessed resources share many of the same characteristics of managed resources, such as, for example:
Finally, there are a few restrictions that BR imposes upon assessed resources, in this embodiment:
To facilitate the building of the customer's IT configuration, observations regarding the customer's environment are gathered and stored in an observation log. In particular, the observation log is used to store observations gathered during runtime in customer environments, where each observation is a collection of various data points. They are created for each of the Recovery Segments that are in “observation” mode. These observations are used for numerous runtime and administrative purposes in the BR environment. As examples the observations are used:
BR gathers observations during runtime when “observation mode” is enabled at the Recovery Segment level. There are two means for enabling observation mode, as examples:
The administrator may also disable observation mode for a Recovery Segment, which stops it from polling for data and creating subsequent observation records for insertion in the log. However, the accumulated observation log is not deleted. In one example, an RS remains in observation mode throughout its lifecycle. The UI displays the implications of disabling observation mode.
In BR, the observations that are collected by BR during runtime can be grouped into two categories, as examples:
A periodic poll observation is a point-in-time snapshot of the constituent resources in a Recovery Segment. Observation data points are collected for those resources in the Recovery Segment(s) which have associated BR management data for any of the following reasons, as examples:
The full value of these observations is derived for an RS when they include data that has been gathered for its constituent resources, plus the resources that those are dependent upon. In one embodiment, the administrator is not forced to include all dependent resources when defining a Recovery Segment, and even if that were the case, there is nothing that prevents them from deleting various dependent resources. When defining a Recovery Segment, the BR UI provides an option that allows the customer to display the dependency graph for those resources already in the Recovery Segment. This displays the topology from the seed node(s) in the Recovery Segment down to and including the dependent leaf nodes. The purpose of this capability is to give the customer the opportunity to display the dependent nodes and recommend that they be included in the Recovery Segment.
Preparatory and recovery workflows are built by the BR manager to achieve the customer requested RTO policy based on resource operations timings. During active policy monitoring by the BR manager, measurements of achieved time for operations are recorded in observations to the log and used to maintain the running statistical data on operation execution times. Observations written to the log may vary in the contained resource RTO metrics and operation execution timings.
Observations are also collected from any of the BPEL workflows created by BR in the customer's environment. There is a standard template that each BR BPEL workflow uses. As part of that template, observation data is captured at the start of, during, and at the completion of each workflow. Specifically, in one example, one observation is created at the end of the workflow with data accumulated from completion of each activity. This information is used to gather timings for workflow execution for use in creating subsequent workflows at time of failure.
In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, management of an environment is facilitated by providing a serialization technique that controls execution of processes used to manage the environment. In one implementation, the processes are programmatically categorized into a plurality of categories, each category having a priority associated therewith. Serialization is then used to control which processes of which categories are executed first, which can be executed concurrently, etc.
Considerations
In managing an IT environment and the resources related to a set of business applications, there is a need for the various management disciplines to differentiate among the priority of processes that are handled by the management components themselves. For example, it may well be desirable to have administrative tasks deferred during critical performance or recovery processing. One or more aspects of the present invention are usable by various disciplines of IT management, and in particular, to categorize and prioritize processing across various disciplines. In the example implementation described herein, a Business Resilience System is detailed that utilizes one or more aspects of the present invention to differentiate levels of processing within an availability management discipline. However, this is only one example.
Business Resilience as a goal oriented, runtime management discipline anticipates providing the highest availability for execution of monitoring and recovery processes, as it is responsible for maintaining the ongoing operation of customer IT supported business functions. Runtime management for availability, monitoring resource status, preparing the environment to meet recovery goals and administrative activities to alter the goal based configuration for BR are to operate on a consistent set of data. Obtaining consistency in the data, while insuring certain processes, such as critical processes for recovery of the environment and monitoring of the environment, execute in preference to lower priority processes, such as preparing the environment or supporting administrative changes, is provided in one aspect of the present invention. In one implementation, the BR logic may execute within web services containers, utilize the transactional semantics supported by web services, use the transactional characteristics of the database systems used for persistence of BR data, and provide the techniques to insure the highest availability for critical BR functions. Traditionally, much simpler techniques involving strict serialization protocols do not achieve the differentiated level of process priority, do not facilitate termination of non-critical processes in favor of critical processes, and do not minimize serialization time over required data.
More traditional alternatives which were explored include:
Insert only:
Optimistic Locking:
BR Exclusive Lock Manager:
Two Copies of Resource Data Instances:
In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, BR supports concurrent flows in its management, both from the perspective of administration changes, as well as runtime availability event handling. As a result, this design categorizes each flow within BR into the following categories, as examples:
There are prioritizations within these categories, roughly described by the number designations. For example, Category 1 has a priority of 1, which is the highest priority in this example; Category 2 has a priority of 2; Category 3 has a priority of 3; and Category 4 has a priority of 4, which is the lowest priority in this example.
Category 1 and 3 type flows can terminate ongoing Category 4 flows, and prevent new ones from forming. Category 4 flows can be long running, and so periodically enable interruption during processing to allow for termination if a recovery situation is underway.
Capabilities provided by BR are described as flows which have an effect on the IT environment, are initiated by some person performing some role or triggered by some event and which have a set of data objects that are referenced, updated or caused to materialize or dematerialize. Each of the possible BR flows fall into one of, for instance, four broad categories which are generally a reflection of importance or urgency. The four categories of flows update a common set of BR related resources (also referred to as data objects) (RS, BRM, CR, BRMD, BRRD, etc.) As a result, serialization protocols are defined to minimize conflicts and to ensure operation with a desired priority. Associated with each category there exists a serialization protocol which is followed. The serialization protocols are achieved through use of a combination of techniques, including for example, use of transaction scope, database serialization which is blocking, database serialization which is non-blocking, fields which represent a summary of change to the environment under which workflows were built, and protocols for ordering of operations to minimize the duration of time over which serialized access to objects is required. The objective of the serialization protocols is to maximize the potential for critical recovery processes to execute, insure monitoring of the environment is enabled for execution, provide priority for preparatory workflows and enable administrative flows which are of the lowest criticality to execute with the highest degree of concurrency. The four categories of flows include, for instance:
Most of the flows establish the start and end of a transaction or execute within an established transactional scope. The Web services runtime environment provides services for starting a transaction, committing a transaction, aborting a transaction and rolling back the changes made within a transaction scope. Web services support execution using a transactional context that is inherited from the caller or if no transactional context exists, establishing a transaction for the operation which enables the service to either complete with the described behavior or terminate in error with no intermediate changes made observable. Each operation on every resource provides the same transactional semantics as Web services. As known, a Web service is a software system designed to support interoperable machine to machine interaction over a network. Web services are frequently Web APIs that can be accessed over a network, such as the Internet, and executed on a remote system hosting the requested services.
Shared Resources and Configuration Change
The BR environment is designed to support sharing of resources between business applications, and therefore, between Recovery Segments. A resource can be shared between Recovery Segments. A Recovery Segment can be a subset of another Recovery Segment. Further, a Recovery Segment can be shared as a subset Recovery Segment between two or more Recovery Segments. For all of these environments, any change which causes the summary state at a RS level to change is also to cause the summary state of all other sharing RS(s) to be changed. Specifically:
In this implementation, execution of Category 1 flows is to be enabled to the greatest extent possible. Furthermore, execution of Category 3 flows are not to be compromised by Category 4 flows. Category 2 flows execute at all times and are at no time blocked by any other category of flow. Category 4 flows do alter the current runtime environment—the same environment being recovered by Category 1 flows or altered by preparatory actions of Category 3 flows. However, the Category 4 flows should not block execution of more critical recovery flows and preparatory flows. Two considerations are addressed to insure Category 4 flows do not block execution of more critical flows. New Category 4 flows are blocked from starting execution if more critical flows are in-progress and Category 4 flows which are in-progress when a Category 1 or Category 3 flow starts terminate at the earliest possible time.
New Category 4 flows are blocked for execution by checking for Category 1 and Category 3 flows in process. Associated with the Recovery Segment a database record with a primary key of “Recovery Segment Transaction Table” (RS TT) is maintained. At the beginning of each Category 1 and Category 3 flows, the RS TT record is read with cursor stability (Read CS), which returns the database record and serializes access from other SQL requests. A count of currently in-progress Category 1 and Category 3 flows in the RS TT record is incremented at the start of Category 1 and Category 3 flows and decremented at the end of Category 1 and Category 3 flows. Category 4 flows “dirty read” (read without cursor stability (CS), which returns the database record and does not serialize access from other SQL requests) the RS TT record at the beginning of the flow. If the count of in-progress Category 1 and Category 3 operations is not zero, the Category 4 flow ends before making any alterations to the environment. Notification is provided by a programmatic return code, and if the Category 4 flow was initiated from the BR, administrative UI notification of in-progress recovery or preparatory workflows is returned.
Category 4 flows which are in-progress at the time a Category 1 or Category 3 flow begins execution are terminated at the earliest possible point in time. Category 4 flows are structured to follow a pattern of, for instance:
This pattern for Category 4 flows minimizes the likelihood of blocking a Category 1 or Category 3 flow. There are intervals where updates made by a Category 4 flow could be blocking a Category 1 or Category 3 flow. Several alternatives for eliminating this interval or for further minimizing this interval are documented later.
Category 4 flows may require long running sequences of operations. For example, when a RS is defined, many relationships may be established among resource(s) and the RS; or when a RS becomes actively monitored by BR for achievement of a policy, many subscriptions may be established for event notification. The flows which require potentially long running operations are performed using the pattern described herein. The long running part of the flow is within a transaction, does not have referenced resources resulting in database locks being held that would block Category 1 or Category 3 flows (i.e., will use dirty read during long running part of the flow), and periodically “opens window” to detect the start of a Category 1 or Category 3 flow. If the start of a Category 1 or Category 3 flow is detected in “open window”, the flow aborts to enable timely execution of the higher priority flow.
Category 4 flows that do not invoke long running operations may also “open window” to enable intervention of higher priority Category 1 or Category 3 flows. If a Category 4 flow could be included in a programmatic process or a workflow that would cause repeated, long running execution in a nested transaction for batch update to the BR environment, the Category 4 flow “opens window” to enable the timely execution of the higher priority flows. When the <PreventNew> sequence is invoked at the beginning of each Category 4 flow, a check is made for Category 1 or Category 3 flows in-progress.
Administrative Flow Termination
In the z/OS® environment, as an example, it is possible to explicitly and programmatically terminate processes that hold database locks. This capability is enabled and utilized by BR to terminate any Category 4 flows that may be blocking recovery or preparatory workflow flows. In the z/OS® environment, the processing to check for in-progress Category 1 or Category 3 flows also reads with cursor stability a well known database record—C4INPROGRESS. In a z/OS® environment, the processing at the start of Category 1 and Category 3 flows invokes asynchronous processing to determine processing holding a lock on C4INPROGRESS and terminate those processes through the use of the DB2® for z/OS® Instrumentation Facility Interfaces.
Order of Locking
Category 4 flows generally run concurrently. There is no assumption of a single BR administrator. In order to avoid deadlocks in concurrently running Category 4 transactions, a recommended ordering to gaining serialized access to objects is followed by the transactions. The following example order obtains serialization of fine grain objects before obtaining serialization on more coarse grain objects. Coarse grain objects are fewer in number and when serialized block execution of a larger number of potentially concurrent processes than fine grain objects. The ordering for obtaining serialization of BR resources follows from first serialized to last serialized, and is as follows, in one example:
A characteristic of many of the BR flows is the creation, execution and monitoring of workflows (or processes) to prepare the environment to meet recovery time objectives or recover within specified recovery time objectives. Workflows are created for other BR processes including delta changes to a prepared environment or undoing changes resulting from a failure to prepare the environment. When a workflow is created, there exists a configuration of resources. The created workflow has validity and meaning within the context of that configuration and can be thought of as having a latent bind to that configuration. That configuration of resources can be altered through the execution of a recovery workflow, execution of a preparatory workflow or through changes initiated by the BR administrator. BR administrator changes include, for example, adding or removing resources to a Recovery Segment, altering the goal policy associated with a Recovery Segment, altering the ordering or operations to be performed, or causing a preparatory workflow to be executed. Since there exists a latent bind between a workflow and the configuration in existence at the time that workflow was built, BR maintains a summary state at the Recovery Segment level reflecting the current configuration. Updates to the configuration that would invalidate workflows built in the context of that configuration cause the summary state of the RS to be altered. When a workflow is built and saved for execution at a later time (as are preparatory workflows, for example), the current configuration summary state is captured and saved. Flows that utilize saved workflows insure that the environment current at the time of their execution is the same as the environment current at the time the workflows were created by comparing the current summary state with the summary state saved with the workflow.
There exists a set of changes to resource metadata which could be considered to either alter the configuration or not alter the configuration. Examples of such changes include altering the preparatory operation ordering, altering the escalation rules associated with operations in a category, altering the operation dependency information between instances of resources, and altering the dependency information for failure and degraded operation relationships. The flows for each of these changes explicitly state whether or not the summary state at the RS is updated to break latent binds to workflows generated assuming a configuration context. If the latent bind is broken due to a change in the environment between time of create and time of use, the workflow needs to be regenerated in the context of the current environment.
Flows which have dependencies on detecting changes in the configuration to break latent binds between constructed workflows and changes to the configuration the workflow was built for follow a consistent pattern, in one example. A first check, under a transaction, is made using “dirty read” of the RS summary state. If the RS summary state has changed from the time the workflow was created up to the time the flow using the workflow executes, the transaction is aborted. After performing operations that do not block database access (under the transactional context), the RS is accessed with serialization. Holding serialization on the RS, the RS summary state is rechecked to insure it continues to be the same as that saved with the workflow. If a change to the configuration has occurred, the transaction is aborted. Otherwise, the flow using the workflow executes and commits.
Monitoring Flows
Monitoring of the BR environment is performed by Category 2 flows, as an example. These flows operate without blocking any other category of flow and without being blocked by any other category of flow. Required data objects retrieved in support of monitoring flows are read without obtaining serialization. Therefore, Category 2 flows run at all times and are concurrent with all other categories of flows.
Preparatory Flow Serialization Processing
Category 3 flows update the RS TT to indicate their presence. This blocks the start of new Category 4 flows and insures timely termination of Category 4 flows in-progress. Category 3 flows do not decrement the count of in-progress Category 3 flows until the complete Category 3 sequence of flows has completed successfully or aborted. If a Category 3 flow terminates abnormally, an attempt is made to reestablish the environment that existed before execution of the preparatory workflow. An undo workflow is built to reestablish the previous configuration. If the undo workflow fails to complete successfully, the BR administrator is notified and takes corrective action. If the undo workflow completes successfully, the RS TT is updated to reflect one less Category 3 flow in-progress. If the BR administrator intervenes to correct the environment, the count of active Category 3 flows is not decremented until the BR administrator specifically indicates corrective actions have been completed and authorizes the count of Category 3 flows to be decremented.
Recovery Flows Terminate Preparatory Workflows
Preparatory workflows execute as part of Category 3 processing, in this example. BR uses knowledge of operation execution duration for workflows and includes invocation of BR supplied operations to detect workflow operation begin and end times. As part of the operations that perform workflow operation timings, a check is made for in-progress Category 1 flows. If a Category 1 flow has begun during execution of the preparatory workflow for Category 3, the workflow is terminated to enable timely execution of the higher priority Category 1 recovery process. On early termination of the preparatory workflow, an undo workflow is built, but not submitted for execution. The undo workflow is saved with the associated RS and notification is provided to the BR administrator. Execution of the undo workflow should be delayed until the recovery processing in-progress has completed. The count of Category 3 processes in-progress remains incremented and blocks further execution of Category 4 flows. When the undo workflow is executed successfully, the count of Category 3 processes is decremented. An interface is also provided to the BR administrator to reset the count of Category 1 and Category 3 processes when recovery has been accomplished outside of BR initiated processing.
When a Category 1 recovery process begins, a count in the RS TT is incremented to block initiation of other non-Category 1 flows. If a Category 3 flow is in-progress, the start of the Category 1 flow attempts to terminate the Category 3 flow either before the workflow is started or by terminating the workflow. The incremented Category 1 in-progress count in the RS TT is examined during workflow operation timing operations provided by BR to end the workflow at operation boundaries.
Recovery Flows are Concurrent and Block Administrative Flows
At the start of a Category 1 flow, the count of in-progress Category 1 flows is incremented in the RS TT. Multiple, concurrent Category 1 flows may be in execution for a RS. Category 1 flows which initiate a new Containment Region (CR) increment the RS TT count of in-progress Category 1 flows. Category 1 flows which terminate a Containment Region decrement the RS TT count of in-progress Category 1 operations. Intermediate processing of a recovery operation causes Category 1 flows to execute, which neither increment or decrement the RS TT count of in-progress Category 1 flows.
Transaction Table
The transaction table (TT) is an internal serialization mechanism used to house the counts of ongoing flows, and is not, in this example, displayed from the BR UI or anywhere else. In one implementation, it may include these record types, as examples:
The transaction table is implemented, in one example, as a DB2® table in the Business Resilience datastore that physically resides in the BR environment. The database is created at installation time, and the transaction table is created and initialized (if necessary) at that time. It is not associated with any particular BRM and is thus, not used to persist any resource properties. The typical access mechanism is via, for instance, JDBC calls from the BRM and associated RS(s) using JDBC type 4 drivers.
One embodiment of the fields of a RS TT record is described below:
Pattern for Administrative Flows
One embodiment of a general pattern for administrative flows is described with reference to
Category 4 flows which may alter the BR configuration as described above run concurrently with potential conflicts detected through retrieving the RS.SummaryState without serialization at the start of processing and retrieving the RS.SummaryState with serialization just before making changes visible to other BR flows. If the RS.SummaryState changed from when initially fetched to when updates are to be made visible, the Category 4 flow does not make changes to the RS, aborts and may reexecute. Note also that the same logic may apply to other BR data where required by a particular Category 4 flow. That is, retrieving a BR data object without serialization to make a determination of processing, and subsequently, immediately prior to making visible updates, retrieve and check that no change has occurred on that same BR data object with serialization. A prime example of this pattern is found where administrative or operational states of a RS are evaluated to determine if a flow is to be allowed given the current runtime state of a RS. The RS state(s) are retrieved without serialization to determine if processing can proceed and retrieved with serialization and checked again for having acceptable values just prior to making visible updates of the flow.
Referring to
A transaction is started for transactional processing, STEP 912. The RS.SummaryState is retrieved without serialization and preserved for checking any changes to the RS environment just prior to making updates visible to other BR flows, STEP 914. If processing for the Category 4 flow has not completed necessary processing INQUIRY 916 (
When the Category 4 flow has completed all phases of processing, INQUIRY 916, the RS.SummaryState is read with serialization, STEP 930 (
Returning to INQUIRY 932, if the RS.SummaryState is unchanged, the RS TT is read with serialization, STEP 940 (
The admin pattern described above applies to Category 4 flows, including, for instance, define RS, define RG, define policy, validate, define pairing.
Pattern for Workflow Flows
One embodiment of a general pattern for flows related to workflow processing is described with reference to
Referring to
Continuing with the flow of
Otherwise, the RS configuration has not changed since the workflow was created, INQUIRY 1016. Processing related to the workflow is performed referencing BR data without serialization, STEP 1022. When processing related to the workflow other than the submission of the workflow has completed, the RS.SummaryState is retrieved with serialization, STEP 1024, and compared to the RS.SummaryState saved with the workflow. If a change has occurred in the RS configuration, INQUIRY 1026, the BR administrator is notified, STEP 1018, the flow aborts, STEP 1020, and is ended.
Otherwise, a determination is made if the workflow is to be submitted, INQUIRY 1028. If not, the transaction is committed, STEP 1030, and this flow ends. Otherwise, the workflow is to be submitted and the RS TT is read with serialization, STEP 1032 (
As the workflow executes, activities within the workflow are initiated and complete. The BR process monitoring the workflow waits for a workflow activity to complete, STEP 1100 (
Subsequently, or when the workflow ends, a transaction is started, STEP 1112. If the workflow completed normally, INQUIRY 1114 (
If the workflow did not end normally, INQUIRY 1114, a determination is made regarding ending the workflow due to detection of a Category 1 recovery process, INQUIRY 1122. If a Category 1 recovery process did not end the workflow, the undo workflow is submitted, STEP 1124, and the transaction is committed, STEP 1126. After waiting for the undo workflow to complete, STEP 1128, a transaction is started, STEP 1130. If the undo workflow ended normally, INQUIRY 1132, processing proceeds to complete the Category 3 flow with STEPs 1116 through 1120. Otherwise, or if the workflow was ended due to a Category 1 recovery process, the BR administrator is notified, STEP 1134, processing is aborted, STEP 1136, and the flow ends.
If a workflow is terminated due to a Category 1 recovery process or if an undo workflow ends abnormally, the BR administrator takes action to repair the IT environment. BR provides notification to the BR administrator and awaits intervention. The BR administrator invokes BR processing through the UI at which time repair of the IT environment may have been completed. If repair has not been completed, INQUIRY 1200 (
When the IT environment has been repaired, INQUIRY 1200, a transaction is started, STEP 1208, and the RS TT is read with serialization, STEP 1210. The count of in-progress Category 3 flows is decremented by one, STEP 1212, and the transaction is committed, STEP 1214, ending the flow.
Pattern for Recovery Flow
One embodiment of a general pattern of flows for Category 1, recovery processes, is described with reference to
Referring to
Continuing with
Subsequent to gathering resource data, a recovery process may be created, STEP 1316 (
After creating the recovery process, the recovery process may be executed, STEP 1318, as, for example, in iteratively submitting the recovery process and monitoring the recovery process.
When recovery processing has completed, a transaction is started, STEP 1320. The RS TT is read with serialization, STEP 1322, and the count of in-progress Category 1 flows is decremented by one, STEP 1324. The transaction is committed, STEP 1326, and the Category 1 flow ends.
z/OS® C4 Cancel Flow
One embodiment of the logic to cancel a transaction is described with reference to
In the z/OS® DB2® database environment, there exists services to return identification of transactions holding serialization on a given database table row and for initiating termination of an identified transaction. These two services provided the basis for BR processing to terminate Category 4 flows in-progress at the time a Category 1 or Category 3 flow is initiated. The set of Category 4 flows in-progress is identified by those transactions having read with serialization, and therefore, locked on the C4INPROGRESS record. For each such transaction, STEP 1400, the DB2® service for initiating termination of the transaction is invoked, STEP 1402. When the in-progress Category 4 flows have been terminated, the routine ends.
Described in detail herein is a capability for using serialization to programmatically control execution of processes of differing priorities.
One or more aspects of the present invention can be included in an article of manufacture (e.g., one or more computer program products) having, for instance, computer usable media. The media has therein, for instance, computer readable program code means or logic (e.g., instructions, code, commands, etc.) to provide and facilitate the capabilities of the present invention. The article of manufacture can be included as a part of a computer system or sold separately.
One example of an article of manufacture or a computer program product incorporating one or more aspects of the present invention is described with reference to
A sequence of program instructions or a logical assembly of one or more interrelated modules defined by one or more computer readable program code means or logic direct the performance of one or more aspects of the present invention.
Advantageously, a capability is provided for programmatically categorizing processes of a computing environment, prioritizing those categories, and providing serialization to control execution of the processes based on priorities.
Although various embodiments are described above, these are only examples. For example, the processing environments described herein are only examples of environments that may incorporate and use one or more aspects of the present invention. Environments may include other types of processing units or servers or the components in each processing environment may be different than described herein. Each processing environment may include additional, less and/or different components than described herein. Further, the types of central processing units and/or operating systems or other types of components may be different than described herein. Again, these are only provided as examples.
Moreover, an environment may include an emulator (e.g., software or other emulation mechanisms), in which a particular architecture or subset thereof is emulated. In such an environment, one or more emulation functions of the emulator can implement one or more aspects of the present invention, even though a computer executing the emulator may have a different architecture than the capabilities being emulated. As one example, in emulation mode, the specific instruction or operation being emulated is decoded, and an appropriate emulation function is built to implement the individual instruction or operation.
In an emulation environment, a host computer includes, for instance, a memory to store instructions and data; an instruction fetch unit to obtain instructions from memory and to optionally, provide local buffering for the obtained instruction; an instruction decode unit to receive the instruction fetched and to determine the type of instructions that have been fetched; and an instruction execution unit to execute the instructions. Execution may include loading data into a register for memory; storing data back to memory from a register; or performing some type of arithmetic or logical operation, as determined by the decode unit. In one example, each unit is implemented in software. For instance, the operations being performed by the units are implemented as one or more subroutines within emulator software.
Further, a data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code is usable that includes at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements through a system bus. The memory elements include, for instance, local memory employed during actual execution of the program code, bulk storage, and cache memory which provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution.
Input/Output or I/O devices (including, but not limited to, keyboards, displays, pointing devices, DASD, tape, CDs, DVDs, thumb drives and other memory media, etc.) can be coupled to the system either directly or through intervening I/O controllers. Network adapters may also be coupled to the system to enable the data processing system to become coupled to other data processing systems or remote printers or storage devices through intervening private or public networks. Modems, cable modems, and Ethernet cards are just a few of the available types of network adapters.
Further, although the environments described herein are related to the management of availability of a customer's environment, one or more aspects of the present invention may be used to manage aspects other than or in addition to availability. Further, one or more aspects of the present invention can be used in environments other than a business resiliency environment.
Yet further, many examples are provided herein, and these examples may be revised without departing from the spirit of the present invention. For example, in one embodiment, the description is described in terms of availability and recovery; however, other goals and/or objectives may be specified in lieu of or in addition thereto. Additionally, the resources may be other than IT resources. Further, there may be references to particular products offered by International Business Machines Corporation or other companies. These again are only offered as examples, and other products may also be used. Additionally, although tables and databases are described herein, any suitable data structure may be used. There are many other variations that can be included in the description described herein and all of these variations are considered a part of the claimed invention.
Further, for completeness in describing one example of an environment in which one or more aspects of the present invention may be utilized, certain components and/or information is described that is not needed for one or more aspects of the present invention. These are not meant to limit the aspects of the present invention in any way.
One or more aspects of the present invention can be provided, offered, deployed, managed, serviced, etc. by a service provider who offers management of customer environments. For instance, the service provider can create, maintain, support, etc. computer code and/or a computer infrastructure that performs one or more aspects of the present invention for one or more customers. In return, the service provider can receive payment from the customer under a subscription and/or fee agreement, as examples. Additionally or alternatively, the service provider can receive payment from the sale of advertising content to one or more third parties.
In one aspect of the present invention, an application can be deployed for performing one or more aspects of the present invention. As one example, the deploying of an application comprises providing computer infrastructure operable to perform one or more aspects of the present invention.
As a further aspect of the present invention, a computing infrastructure can be deployed comprising integrating computer readable code into a computing system, in which the code in combination with the computing system is capable of performing one or more aspects of the present invention.
As yet a further aspect of the present invention, a process for integrating computing infrastructure, comprising integrating computer readable code into a computer system may be provided. The computer system comprises a computer usable medium, in which the computer usable medium comprises one or more aspects of the present invention. The code in combination with the computer system is capable of performing one or more aspects of the present invention.
The capabilities of one or more aspects of the present invention can be implemented in software, firmware, hardware, or some combination thereof. At least one program storage device readable by a machine embodying at least one program of instructions executable by the machine to perform the capabilities of the present invention can be provided.
The flow diagrams depicted herein are just examples. There may be many variations to these diagrams or the STEPs (or operations) described therein without departing from the spirit of the invention. For instance, the STEPs may be performed in a differing order, or STEPs may be added, deleted, or modified. All of these variations are considered a part of the claimed invention.
Although embodiments have been depicted and described in detail herein, it will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant art that various modifications, additions, substitutions and the like can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention and these are therefore considered to be within the scope of the invention as defined in the following claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5023873 | Stevenson et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
| 5386561 | Huynh et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5452452 | Gaetner et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5481694 | Chao et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5537542 | Eilert et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5604863 | Allen et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5631831 | Bird et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5652908 | Douglas et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5734837 | Flores et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5790780 | Brichta et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5797005 | Bahls et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5797129 | Rohan | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5826080 | Dworzecki | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5887168 | Bahls et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 6012044 | Maggioncalda et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6012152 | Douik et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6041306 | Du et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6336138 | Caswell et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6385613 | Grewell et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6393386 | Zager et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6393485 | Chao et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6408277 | Nelken | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6449688 | Peters et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6480944 | Bradshaw et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
| 6625751 | Starovic et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6732118 | Hermann et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6785768 | Peters et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6862696 | Voas et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6874010 | Sargent | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6934247 | Bhattal et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6954786 | Vered et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
| 6983321 | Trinon et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6983362 | Kidder et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 7032186 | Gasser et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7047337 | Armstrong et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7058947 | Raja et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7111297 | Sankaranarayan et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
| 7197749 | Thornton et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7243267 | Klemm et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7313573 | Leung et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7325161 | Rakic et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
| 7395537 | Brown et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7409356 | Geddes et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7437611 | Agarwal et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7490265 | Baskey et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7499954 | Cherkauer et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7509529 | Colucci et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7529981 | Childress et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7536585 | Keeton et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7568019 | Bhargava et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7587483 | Florissi et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
| 7610512 | Gerber | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7620953 | Tene et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
| 7627728 | Roeck et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
| 7650341 | Oratovsky et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
| 7707173 | Nanavati et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7730363 | Takezawa et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7743001 | Vermeulen et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7747730 | Harlow | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7752310 | Kageyama | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7774457 | Talwar et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7774458 | Trinon et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7818421 | Machida | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7865582 | Santos et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7933872 | Kulkarni et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7934119 | Takamoto et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7937706 | Casotto | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7958393 | Bobak et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7962590 | Or et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
| 8051106 | Bird | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8260893 | Bandhole et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
| 20010056398 | Scheirer | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010056554 | Chrabaszcz | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020022952 | Zager et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049749 | Helgeson et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059512 | Desjardins | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020069102 | Vellante et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020078130 | Thornton et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020078381 | Farley et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091991 | Castro | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194045 | Shay et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198727 | Ann et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030051186 | Boudnik et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030056013 | Laschkewitsch et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078823 | Yoshioka et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030084100 | Gahan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093672 | Cichowlas | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030135384 | Nguyen | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030139956 | Guenther et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030200482 | Sullivan | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212580 | Shen | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212685 | Rakotoarivelo et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030225602 | Hagmann et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030236677 | Casati et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040034553 | Cole et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040054690 | Hillerbrand et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078373 | Ghoneimy et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040119752 | Beringer et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040143470 | Myrick et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158777 | Bae et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162741 | Flaxer et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040181476 | Smith et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186905 | Young et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193476 | Aerdts | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199768 | Nail | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040210452 | Aboujaoude et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243699 | Koclanes et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050015641 | Alur et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050033600 | Geddes et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050043977 | Ahern et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050049906 | Leymann et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050060662 | Soares et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071470 | O'Brien et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086091 | Trumbly et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091351 | Badovinatz et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050096949 | Aiber et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050119905 | Wong et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125768 | Wong et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050172306 | Agarwal et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177406 | Facciorusso et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050198244 | Eilam et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228852 | Santos et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050235248 | Victoria et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050262242 | Byers et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004265 | Pulkkinen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060010234 | Reedy et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060020866 | Lo et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060037022 | Byrd et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060041505 | Enyart | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064335 | Goldszmidt et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074731 | Green et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074736 | Shukla et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074993 | Pulamarasetti et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106626 | Jeng et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060111921 | Chang et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112383 | Chang et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060117221 | Fisher et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060123022 | Bird | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060129562 | Pulamarasetti et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149842 | Dawson et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060161466 | Trinon et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060179136 | Loboz et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190368 | Kesterman | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190583 | Whalen | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190775 | Aggarwal et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218558 | Torii et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224702 | Schmidt et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060245354 | Gao et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060245369 | Schimmelpfeng et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248546 | Andreev et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259526 | Booz et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060287875 | Reddy et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293942 | Chaddha et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070011331 | Morimotto et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070027734 | Hughes | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070038490 | Joodi | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070038492 | Ryan et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067296 | Malloy et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070079097 | Karnowski et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100712 | Kilpatrick et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070112847 | Dublish et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143166 | Leymann et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150571 | Haga et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070165525 | Kageyama | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070179826 | Cutlip et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198678 | Dieberger et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070234408 | Burch et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070266029 | Baskey et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271219 | Agarwal et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276885 | Valiyaparambil et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070286219 | Knop et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294406 | Suer et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070300204 | Andreev et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080005739 | Sadiq et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080016335 | Takahashi et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052719 | Briscoe et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080063423 | Matoba | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140495 | Bhamidipaty et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080215909 | Bretschneider et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080294777 | Karve et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080295100 | Ainsworth | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080317217 | Bernardini et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090037363 | Kozlov et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090077210 | Musman et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125751 | Dawson et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090150456 | Balasubramanian et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090150887 | Sanghvi et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171703 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171704 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171705 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171706 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171707 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171708 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171730 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171731 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171732 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171733 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172149 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172460 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172461 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172470 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172668 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172669 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172670 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172671 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172674 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172687 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172688 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172689 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172769 | Bobak et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090249337 | Vasilevsky et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20100280863 | Wilcock et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004564 | Rolia et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| WO 9910814 | Mar 1999 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/966,495 dated Oct. 29, 2009. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,874 dated Mar. 18, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,897 dated Mar. 31, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,930 dated Apr. 1, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/966,619 dated Feb. 2, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,926 dated Feb. 3, 2011. |
| Rood, Melody A., “Enterprise Architecture: Definition, Content & Utility,” IEEE, Jul. 1994, pp. 106-111. |
| Buchanan, Richard D., et al., “Aligning Enterprise and IT Investments with Corporate Goals,” OMG White Paper, 2002, p. 1-13 (in Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,926—no further date information available.). |
| Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,889 dated Feb. 16, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,913 dated Mar. 1, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,845 dated Mar. 11, 2011. |
| Liu, Rong et al., “Modeling Business Contexture and Behavior Using Business Artifacts,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007, vol. 4495/2007, pp. 324-339 (in Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,845—no further date information available.). |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,922 dated Mar. 16, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,832 dated May 12, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,851 dated May 20, 2011. |
| Bolie et al., “BPEL Cookbook: Best Practices for SOA-based Integration and Composite Applications Development”, 2006, Packt Publishing, ISBN 1904811337; Chapter 1; 12 pages. |
| Juric, et al., Business Process Execution Language for Web Services—An Architect and Developers Guide to Orchestrating Web Services Using BPEL4WS, Second Edition; 2006; Packt Publishing; ISBN 1904811817; Chapter 5; 28 pages. |
| Horstman et al., Core Java 2: vol. I—Fundamentals (7th Edition); Core Series; 2003; Sun Microsystems, Inc., ISBN 0131472025; pp. 324-327. |
| Perry, J. Steven, “Java Management Extension: 1st Edition,” Jun. 15, 2002; O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.; ISBN 0596002459; Chapter 1 (pp. 1-32) and Chapter 7 (pp. 207-222). |
| Weerawarana et al., “Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More,” 2005; Pearson Education, Inc.; ISBN 0131488740; Chapter 14 (pp. 313-340). |
| Van Bon, Jan, “Foundations of IT Service Management Based on ITIL,” Sep. 2005; Van Haren Publishing; ISBN 9077212582; Chapter 6 (pp. 69-85). |
| Kreger et al., “JAVA and JMX—Building Manageable Systems,” Jan. 2003; ISBN 0672324083; pp. 54-64. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,855 dated Apr. 30, 2010. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/966,495 dated May 14, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,862 dated Jun. 23, 2010. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/966,495 dated Jun. 14, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,872 dated Jul. 6, 2010. |
| “Parasoft BPEL Maestro,” http://www.parasoft.com/jsp/products/home.jsp?product=BPEL. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,897 dated Sep. 17, 2010. |
| “BPEL Project”, http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/. |
| “Factor Analysis Using SAS PROC Factor”, http://www.utexas.edu/cc/docs/stat53.html. |
| “Principal Components and Factor Analysis”, http://statsoft.com/textbook/stfacan.html. |
| “WebSphere Intergration Developer”, http://www-306.ibm.com/software/integration/wid/about/?S—CMP=rnav. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,930 dated Sep. 29, 2010. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,874 dated Oct. 14, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,862 dated Dec. 7, 2010. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,855 dated Dec. 22, 2010. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,832 dated Dec. 22, 2010. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,872 dated Dec. 22, 2010. |
| Patent Application for U.S. Appl. No. 12/975,520, filed Dec. 22, 2010 entitled “Real-Time Information Technology Environments”. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,922 dated Jul. 29, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,845 dated Jul. 29, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,832 dated Aug. 23, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,902 dated Aug. 23, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,838 dated Aug. 19, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,913 dated Aug. 17, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,894 dated Jul. 18, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,855 dated Oct. 3, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,951 dated Oct. 5, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,851 dated Oct. 28, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,877 dated Nov. 8, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,899 dated Nov. 22, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,917 dated Dec. 21, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,902 dated Dec. 21, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,894 dated Dec. 27, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,889 dated May 25, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/966,619 dated Jun. 15, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,899 dated Jun. 20, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,877 dated Jun. 20, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,862 dated Jul. 8, 2011. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,917 dated Jul. 11, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,926 dated Jul. 19, 2011. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,832 dated Jan. 9, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/966,495 dated Feb. 1, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,862 dated Feb. 14, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,872 dated Feb. 16, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,951 dated Feb. 22, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,926 dated Mar. 2, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,874 dated Mar. 19, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,889 dated Jan. 11, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,845 dated Apr. 18, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,922 dated Apr. 20, 2012. |
| Crawford, C. H. et al., “Toward an on Demand Service-Oriented Architecture,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 44, No. 1, 2005, pp. 81-107. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,894 dated Jun. 13, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,889 dated Jun. 20, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,902 dated Jul. 5, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/975,520 dated Jul. 18, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,906 dated Jul. 23, 2012. |
| Evans, James, “Optimization Algorithms for Networks and Graphs, Second Edition”, 1992, CCR, ISBN 0824786025, Chapters 1-3 (pp. 1-76) and Chapter 11 (pp. 390-413). |
| Jolliffe, Ian T., “Principal Component Analysis”, 2002, Pringer, ISBN 0387954422, Chapters 1-4 (pp. 1-77), Chapters 6-7 (pp. 111-166) and Chapters 12-14 (pp. 299-405). |
| Lau, Hang T., “A Java Library of Graph Algorithms and Optimization Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications,” 2006, Chapman & Hall, ISBN 1584887184, Chapter 2.2 (pp. 39-43). |
| Horstmann, Cay S. et al., Core Java 2—vol. II—Advanced Features (7th Edition), Sun Microsystems Press, 2005, ISBN 0131118269, Chapter 1 (pp. 1-22). |
| “Parasoft BPEL Maestro,” hftp://www.parasoft.com/jsp/products/home.jsp?product=BPEL, Nov. 6, 2008. |
| “BPEL Project”, http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/, 2008 |
| “Factor Analysis Using SAS PROC Factor”, http://www.utexas.edu/cc/docs/stat53.html, Jun. 26, 1995. |
| “Principal Components and Factor Analysis”, http://statsoft.com/textbook/stfacan.html, 2008. |
| “WebSphere Intergration Developer”, retrieved Jul. 3, 2008 http://www-306.ibm.com/software/integration/wid/about/?S—CMP=rnav, retrieved Jul. 3, 2008. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,922 dated Aug. 28, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,899 dated Aug. 28, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,845 dated Aug. 29, 2012. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,862 dated Sep. 26, 2012. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,926 dated Oct. 5, 2012. |
| Kramer, Jeff et al., “The Evolving Philosophers Problem: Dynamic Change Management,” Aug. 1991, pp. 1-33. |
| Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/965,894 dated Oct. 23, 2012. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20090172682 A1 | Jul 2009 | US |
