The work being done in WSDM will lay a firm foundation for effective distributed system management, both leveraging the unifying strengths of Web services in the solution
itself and addressing the specific requirements for managing what are rapidly
becoming the universal glue in enterprise system design.
The OASIS Web Services Distributed Management Technical Committee
(WSDM TC) was chartered in March 2003 to recommend standards to
address a problem that has been developing for many years. But with
the widespread emergence of Web services and service-oriented
architecture implementations in mainstream enterprise IT
environments, the distributed systems management problem can no
longer be ignored. The WSDM TC is focusing on two distinct tasks as
it attempts to solve some pressing distributed system management
problems.
The first activity area, called Management Using Web Services (MUWS)
addresses the use of Web services technologies as the foundation of a
modern distributed systems management framework - including using Web
services to facilitate interactions between managed resources and
management applications. The same characteristics that make Web
services successful for application integration make them an
excellent choice for use in solving the management integration
problem - facilitating communications between managers and resources
across numerous vendors, platforms, technologies, and topologies.
In addition to the use of Web services in the creation of a
management framework, WSDM is addressing the specific requirements
for managing Web services like any other IT resource. This activity
is called Management of Web Services (MOWS). The manageability models
that are being developed for Web services will be exposed using the
techniques defined as part of the MUWS task.
Web Services Accelerate a Problem
For over two decades, there has been an evolution underway in the
architecture of enterprise IT systems - a move away from big,
unwieldy monolithic systems toward distributed architectures.
Technologies such as DCE, CORBA, and DCOM were attempts to
standardize mechanisms for software system interoperability.
Client/server architectures - two-tier, three-tier, and then n-tier -
were stepping stones along the path to what is rapidly emerging as
the dominant form of enterprise IT system design - the
service-oriented architecture (SOA).
The SOA is a distributed system made up of software components that
interact by passing messages to discoverable service access points.
The SOA stresses interoperability, location transparency, and loose
coupling.
While most consider the SOA an evolutionary step in the long road
toward enterprise-scale distributed computing, the rate of adoption
of SOAs based on Web services technologies is nothing short of
revolutionary. This revolution is being fueled by the unprecedented
vendor support of Web services standards. Web services deliver the
required messaging and discovery building blocks for enterprise SOA
deployments.
As Web service-based SOAs spring up across the enterprise landscape,
they are accelerating and exacerbating a systems management challenge
that has been growing in urgency in parallel with the development of
enterprise-scale distributed computing.
In a monolithic application (or tightly coupled, client/server
application), application boundaries are relatively clear and fixed.
In an SOA environment, applications cross system (and even
organizational) boundaries, they overlap, and they can change over
time (see Figure 1).
Managing these applications is a serious challenge - but an absolute
requirement. Failure or change of a single application component can
bring down numerous interdependent enterprise applications. The
addition of new applications or components can overload existing
components, causing unexpected degradation or failure of seemingly
unrelated systems. Application performance depends on the combined
performance of cooperating components and their interactions.
Effective systems and application management in a Web service-based
SOA requires a management framework that is consistent across an
increasingly heterogeneous set of participating component systems,
while supporting complex aggregate (cross-component) management use
cases, like service-level agreement enforcement and dynamic resource
provisioning.
The rapid emergence of Web services and their acceleration of SOA
adoption have made this need urgent - resulting in the charter of
WSDM in March 2003.
Basic Structure and Components
Figure 2 highlights the basic structure and components of today's
management frameworks. This generic model will be used to highlight
the specific areas of management being addressed by WSDM and how they
differ from traditional models.
At the bottom of the framework is a managed system that contains a
collection of managed resources. A managed system typically contains
multiple managed resources - for example, CPU, memory, disks,
software components, and Web services. In an SOA, a key management
framework requirement is the ability to understand the relationships
between managed resources both within and across system boundaries.
Management systems today do a relatively poor
job of building, maintaining, and leveraging information about
resource relationships - particularly across managed system
boundaries.
Next up the stack is the management agent. This component models
managed resources and represents these resources in interactions with
a manager. The manager always addresses and interacts with the
management agent. The agent then interacts with managed resources.
A management protocol is the communication channel between the
manager and the management agent. A management protocol is usually a
two-way communication channel that allows the flow of operation
requests and responses (e.g. get, set, and stop). It may use the same
channel for passing notifications of events of interest.
In the distributed systems management context, it is increasingly
important for management agents (and supporting management protocols)
to define and support active capabilities versus traditional passive
capabilities. For example, rather than merely raising an alert when a
given Web service is unable to meet the performance requirements of a
given service-level agreement, the management framework should be
able to take corrective action. This action could take the form of
rerouting requests to a backup service that is less heavily loaded,
or provisioning a new application server with an instance of the
software providing the service if no backup is currently running and
available.
The manager is an application that communicates with management
agents via management protocols, gathering information about managed
system and managed resource status and performance, and supporting
specific management tasks (e.g., root cause failure analysis, SLA
monitoring and reporting, and capacity planning). It is this set of
supported tasks that should drive (and is driving in the case of
WSDM) the requirements for the rest of the management framework.
Existing Standards and Solutions Do Not Address the Problem
System and application management considerations have always been
secondary to the creation and introduction of new systems and
applications.
Management standards and solutions typically trail the introduction
of new approaches to IT system design. Over time, the result has been
a proliferation of fractured, simplistic management standards and
proprietary solutions that are usually targeted to solve point
management problems. These point solutions have been specific to
managed resources (e.g., storage, network infrastructure, software
applications), management problems (e.g., failure detection and
analysis, performance management, security policy enforcement), or
specific vendor or technology solutions (J2EE application management,
Windows server management).
In a world of complex distributed systems, these no longer suffice.
To effectively manage a distributed application there must be a
uniform mechanism for consistently managing its constituent
components; understanding and managing component relationships; and
managing the resulting aggregate system as a whole. In addition,
emerging customer requirements for autonomic computing capabilities
require management solutions to be far more active in nature -
solving problems, not just identifying them. Management systems must
be able to do all of these things for applications and systems across
the enterprise, and across enterprise boundaries.
WSDM addresses many of these traditional management solution
shortcomings (e.g., lack of integration across vendors and platforms,
end-to-end information collection, agent dependency and passivity)
through two distinct focus areas as highlighted in Figure 3.
Management Using Web Services (MUWS)
WSDM MUWS activity focuses on defining how Web services architecture
and technologies can be used to manage any IT resource. In
particular, MUWS will define how to describe the manageability
capabilities of managed resources using WSDL documents.
An overarching requirement for MUWS is that it must use existing
Internet infrastructure technologies and be compliant to the Web
Services Architecture developed by the W3C WSA Working Group. Many
current MUWS contributors were original contributors to W3C WSA
activities - where management requirements and issues related to Web
services were initially laid out.
Web services technologies offer substantial advantages in the context
of distributed systems management. They are language and platform
neutral. There is tremendous industry momentum and support across a
wide variety of system offerings. They offer on-the-wire
interoperability and resource discovery with extensibility,
separation of interface and implementation, and a rich metadata
mechanism. In short, they allow MUWS to concentrate on developing
specifications for problems specific to distributed systems
management that require this set of infrastructure capabilities,
without reinventing them.
There are two activities MUWS is not engaging in.
MUWS is not creating Web services technologies outside the scope of
management. Required platform technologies will be obtained from the
Web services community in the form of existing standards,
specifications, and best practices. Examples are security, policy,
and reliable messaging.
MUWS is not creating a new model for representing managed resources.
Rather, the requirement is that MUWS must be able to work with
multiple, existing, domain-specific models. CIM from DTMF is the most
prominent, but not the exclusive, model for this work. SNMP and OMI
information models will also be considered. The objective is to bind
a unifying layer on top of these various models to facilitate
consistent management in a heterogeneous distributed environment.
This on-the-wire unification of disparate resource models is the real
power of Web services in the management context.
There is a variety of functionality requirements that the MUWS
recommendation must address, including (note that these were
preliminary as of July 2003):
Conformance and consistency with other management standards
and existing managed resource models As noted above, MUWS will
embrace and extend the usefulness of, versus replace, existing
management models and frameworks. MUWS will allow Web service-based
access to managed resources already instrumented for existing
management technologies. This increases the number of managers that
can manage these resources without requiring the managers to support
each management technology independently. In particular, MUWS is
coordinating with DMTF, GGF, and the W3C. The Distributed Management
Task Force (DMTF) offers management models (CIM) that will need to be
described as manageability interfaces in WSDL. The Global Grid Forum
(GGF) is working on solving dynamic resource sharing and provisioning
problems. The GGF Open Grid Services Infrastructure (OGSI) defines
how to represent and access IT resources as stateful grid services.
OGSI also has the Common Manageability Model (CMM) working group,
which focuses on representing manageability using grid services.
There is much synergy and experience to be shared among MUWS, OGSI
and CMM. The WSDM TC is working with other OASIS technical
committees, including the security TC and provisioning TC.
Wide scope of manageable resource support:
MUWS will support the development of manageability interfaces
for hardware and software resources, both physical and logical. A
wide variety of management capabilities will be supported, including
life cycle state and control, monitoring, and configuration
management. Manageable resources can support these capabilities
selectively and incrementally.
Distributed management: MUWS must enable management of highly distributed environments, including supporting occasionally connected
resources, resource aggregation, hierarchical managers, and multiple
managers.
Variety of message exchange patterns: Supporting both
synchronous and asynchronous communication methods, one-way and
two-way messages, and initiation of communication from either manager
or managed resource (e.g. a manager queries for information using
request-reply model, managed resource provides one-way event
notification).
Discovery: MUWS manageable resources will be described
through WSDL and XML Schema, making these resources discoverable like
any other Web service.
Secure: MUWS will enable secure communication between manager and managed resources, and is being explicitly defined to work across
enterprise boundaries to support cross-organization management
scenarios. One of the advantages of relying on Web services as a
foundation is that MUWS doesn't need to explicitly solve this
problem. Rather, it can reference security technologies and standards
already available for Web services.
In addition to these functional requirements, MUWS must also enable
interoperability, extensibility, scalability, usability, efficiency,
and internationalization.
Management of Web Services (MOWS)
The WSDM MOWS activity is developing a model of a Web service as a
manageable resource. The model requirements are being primarily
driven by a set of management tasks that should be supported. These
management tasks are numerous and include such varied activities as
service metering, auditing, billing, performance profiling, SLA
management, problem detection, root cause failure diagnosis, service
deployment, and life cycle management. These management functionality
requirements are the ultimate drivers of model requirements - they
will highlight what Web service characteristics and management
methods must be exposed to a manager. Explicit in MOWS is the
requirement that it be described and accessible in a way consistent
with MUWS.
Like MUWS activities, MOWS aims to build on existing model frameworks
(such as DMTF CIM) in its definition of the management model of a Web
service, rather than reinventing a general managed resource object
model scheme.
In order to enable the expected management application use cases, the
MOWS model will include (note: these were preliminary as of July
2003):
Identification: Each modeled Web service must have a unique identification, including a notion of version.
Life cycle/State: Expose the current state of a service and permit lifecycle management including the ability to start and stop a
service.
Metrics: Must expose key operational metrics of a Web
service, at the operation level, including such metrics as response
time and throughput.
Configuration: Will support the ability to make specific
configuration changes to a deployed Web service.
Relationships: Must permit the expression of relationships
between and among Web services and other IT architectural elements
and systems.
Types of resources: Clearly, Web services are manageable
resources in the MOWS model, but additional considerations are being
made for modeling the scope in which a given service is being
leveraged - individual, composite, part of a long-running business
process.
Extensibility: The model must be extensible and must permit discovery of supported management functionality in a given model
instantiation.
Change description and notification: Will support the
description of versions of Web services and notification of a change
or impending change to the service interface or implementation.
Conclusion
The adoption of Web services technologies in the foundation of SOA
implementations is well underway in the enterprise. This
architectural approach to IT system design brings substantial and
well-documented business benefits. Consistant with historical
behavior patterns, management is a secondary consideration in many of
these implementations.
But in this architectural iteration, the costs associated with
relegating management to the back seat are substantially higher than
they have ever been. The nature of the SOA - complex system
interdependencies - tends to magnify and spread system problems. What
may have been a contained issue in a monolithic application
environment, affecting a limited set of systems or business
processes, can be a far-reaching and far more costly problem in an
SOA environment.
The initial fruits of these labors are due in January 2004 as the Web
Services Distributed Management v1.0 Specification.
Author Bios
Heather Kreger is the Web services lead architect for IBM's Emerging
Technologies. She is responsible for helping Web service integration,
manageability, and adoption across IBM. Heather is colead of OASIS
Web Services Distributed Management Technical Committee, was colead
of JSR109, Web services for J2EE environments and a member
of the W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group. She is the author
of Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems.
kreger@us.ibm.com.
James Phillips is chief strategist and senior vice president,
products and marketing, at Actional Corporation. Actional offers a
Web services management platform that is uniquely architected to help
organizations manage the impact of the constant change inherent in
enterprise Web service networks. Actional's patented
active-management technologies provide users with a complete view of
the entire enterprise Web services environment.
jamesp@actional.com.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 2004 SYS-CON Media, Inc.
E-mail:
info@sys-con.com