云化虚拟化网络业务可用度多参数敏感性分析

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2022.08.34

Abstract

Abstract:

Hardware and software device types are increasing with the virtualization of network functions. Different devices have different fault and recovery parameters, which affect application availability. It is difficult to find the key parameters that have the greatest impact on application availability, because different applications share network device resources. The correctness of the results are difficult to be ensured by existing local sensitivity analysis methods, and existing global sensitivity analysis methods require a large number of simulation samples and are difficult to be conducted. Therefore, this paper divides the parameters in the network into heterogeneous and homogeneous ones, and then analyses them by the total effect index method and the dynamic application intermediate method respectively. Finally, the key parameters in the network are found by synthesizing the analysis results of the two methods. The proposed method can ensure the accuracy of the results and greatly reduce the sample size of simulation.

Key words: network function virtualization (NFV), application availability, sensitivity analysis, key parameters

CLC Number:

N94-0

Jie ZHU, Ning HUANG, Liang CHENG. Multi-parameter sensitivity analysis of network function virtualization application availability[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 44(8): 2677-2687.

Figures/Tables 14

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 2

Fig.3

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Sensitivity ordering of heterogeneous parameters in different sample sizes"

参数类别	样本容量n
参数类别	20	20	40	40	60	60	80	80	均值
x₁	0.016 4	0.012 4	0.015 8	0.010 9	0.011 7	0.008 6	0.018 7	0.018 0	0.014 0
x₂	0.009 9	0.010 0	0.035 1	0.018 9	0.012 5	0.016 1	0.017 0	0.017 3	0.017 1
x₃	0.001 8	0.001 8	0.005 2	0.004 8	0.002 4	0.002 3	0.004 6	0.003 5	0.003 3
x₄	0.356 0	0.332 1	0.499 6	0.386 0	0.370 0	0.387 9	0.495 2	0.781 6	0.451 0
x₅	0.003 2	0.002 7	0.008 1	0.006 3	0.002 5	0.003 9	0.005 6	0.004 4	0.004 5
x₆	0.002 0	0.002 2	0.003 9	0.005 1	0.002 1	0.002 1	0.003 9	0.003 4	0.003 0
x₇	0.003 9	0.000 7	0.003 2	0.005 9	0.003 2	0.002 9	0.003 8	0.004 0	0.003 4
x₈	0.002 3	0.001 4	0.002 1	0.004 2	0.003 4	0.002 4	0.004 1	0.003 0	0.002 8
x₉	0.003 1	0.001 9	0.003 7	0.005 0	0.002 6	0.002 3	0.003 3	0.002 9	0.003 1
x₁₀	0.002 8	0.001 5	0.004 5	0.004 0	0.003 6	0.002 7	0.003 5	0.003 7	0.003 2
x₁₁	0.001 7	0.000 8	0.002 7	0.005 3	0.003 9	0.002 3	0.003 4	0.005 1	0.003 1
x₁₂	0.001 6	0.001 6	0.002 8	0.004 2	0.003 0	0.001 9	0.003 6	0.003 7	0.002 8
x₁₃	0.000 8	0.001 3	0.003 8	0.005 2	0.003 3	0.002 8	0.003 0	0.004 9	0.003 1
x₁₄	0.003 6	0.001 3	0.006 4	0.005 0	0.003 3	0.002 7	0.004 4	0.005 0	0.003 9
x₁₅	0.001 4	0.003 1	0.004 2	0.004 1	0.003 5	0.002 7	0.005 3	0.002 8	0.003 3
x₁₆	0.337 0	0.382 3	0.567 9	0.570 0	0.580 4	0.195 2	0.268 2	0.853 7	0.469 3
x₁₇	0.001 5	0.004 1	0.005 2	0.003 4	0.003 2	0.002 5	0.005 1	0.005 1	0.003 7
x₁₈	0.002 0	0.002 2	0.007 1	0.008 1	0.003 4	0.004 5	0.003 6	0.006 6	0.004 6
x₁₉	0.001 3	0.001 1	0.004 6	0.009 1	0.003 2	0.003 1	0.005 8	0.003 3	0.003 9
x₂₀	0.004 4	0.006 3	0.007 6	0.014 5	0.007 5	0.006 0	0.009 4	0.009 9	0.008 2
x₂₁	0.006 1	0.003 2	0.014 9	0.012 4	0.008 0	0.007 0	0.017 0	0.012 8	0.010 1
x₂₂	0.003 5	0.001 4	0.003 2	0.008 3	0.002 8	0.002 5	0.003 4	0.004 2	0.003 6
x₂₃	0.225 2	0.126 0	0.324 9	0.376 1	0.492 7	0.216 9	0.349 4	0.427 8	0.317 3
x₂₄	0.006 1	0.003 9	0.005 3	0.007 4	0.003 6	0.002 7	0.006 3	0.003 9	0.004 9
x₂₅	0.003 8	0.002 4	0.003 8	0.004 3	0.002 7	0.002 3	0.003 2	0.004 0	0.003 3

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Fig.4

Table 10

References 18

1	黄宁. 网络可靠性及评估技术[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2020.
	HUANG N . Network reliability and evaluation technology[M]. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2020.
2	YI Z W, HUANG N, CAI H S T. Evaluating the application availability of intelligent optical networks based on the network evolution model[C]//Proc. of the 31th European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL), 2021.
3	FREY H C , PATIL S R . Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods[J]. Risk Analysis, 2010, 22 (3): 553- 578.
4	CARPIO F , JUKAN A . Improving reliability of service function chains with combined VNF migrations and replications[J]. Computer Research Repository, 2017,
5	RUI L L , CHEN X S , GAO Z P , et al. Petri net-based reliability assessment and migration optimization strategy of SFC[J]. IEEE Trans.on Network and Service Management, 2021, 18 (1): 167- 181. doi: 10.1109/TNSM.2020.3045705
6	STEINER M , BOURINET J M , LAHMER T . An adaptive sampling method for global sensitivity analysis based on least-squares support vector regression[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2019, (183): 323- 340.
7	REN J , ZHANG W B , YANG J . Morris sensitivity analysis for hydrothermal coupling parameters of embankment dam: a case study[J]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019,
8	杨英杰, 于永利, 张柳, 等. 装备维修保障仿真系统灵敏度分析与参数优化[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2016, 38 (3): 575- 581.
	YANG Y J , YU Y L , ZHANG L , et al. Sensitivity analysis and parameters optimization for equipment maintenance support simu- lation system[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38 (3): 575- 581.
9	史妍妍, 孙志礼, 闫明. 响应面方法在可靠性灵敏度计算中的应用[J]. 东北大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 30 (2): 270- 273.
	SHI Y Y , SUN Z L , YAN M . Application of response surface methodology in sensitivity calculation of reliability[J]. Journal of Northeastern University (Natural Science), 2009, 30 (2): 270- 273.
10	RODRIGUEZ-CAMINO E , AVISSAR R . Comparison of three land-surface schemes with the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST)[J]. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, 2016, 3 (50): 313- 322.
11	李传奇, 崔佳伟, 马梦蝶, 等. 泵站动态规划优化模型的全局敏感性分析方法及应用[J]. 水电能源科学, 2019, 37 (5): 159- 163.
	LI C Q , CUI J W , MA M D , et al. Global sensitivity analysis of dynamic programming optimization model of pumping station and its application[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2019, 37 (5): 159- 163.
12	JIN R C , CHEN W , SUDJIANTO A . Analytical metamodel-based global sensitivity analysis and uncertainty propagation for robust design[J]. Journal of Quality Technology, 2006, 38 (4): 333- 348. doi: 10.1080/00224065.2006.11918622
13	韩晓阳, 孟相如, 康巧燕, 等. 可靠性与拓扑感知的服务功能链备份保护方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43 (7): 1961- 1970.
	HAN X Y , MENG X R , KANG Q Y , et al. Reliability and topo-logy aware service function chain backup protection method[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43 (7): 1961- 1970.
14	阳勇, 孟相如, 康巧燕, 等. 基于流量优化的可靠服务功能链部署方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43 (10): 3017- 3025. doi: 10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2021.10.38
	YANG Y , MENG X R , KANG Q Y , et al. Reliable service function chain deployment method based on traffic optimization[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43 (10): 3017- 3025. doi: 10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2021.10.38
15	杨旭, 肖子玉, 邵永平, 等. NFV可靠性探讨[J]. 电信科学, 2017, 33 (7): 136- 143.
	YANG X , XIAO Z Y , SHAO Y P , et al. Discussion on the reliability of NFV[J]. Telecommunications Science, 2017, 33 (7): 136- 143.
16	刘晓路, 陈英武, 荆显荣, 等. 优化拉丁方试验设计方法及其应用[J]. 国防科技大学学报, 2011, 33 (5): 73- 77. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-2486.2011.05.015
	LIU X L , CHEN Y W , JING X R , et al. Optimized latin hypercube sampling method and its application[J]. Journal of National University of Defense Technology, 2011, 33 (5): 73- 77. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-2486.2011.05.015
17	潘星, 张振宇, 张艳梅, 等. 基于Sobol敏感性分析的装备体系保障效能评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43 (2): 390- 398.
	PAN X , ZHANG Z Y , ZHANG Y M , et al. Equipment SoS support effectiveness evaluation based on Sobol sensitivity analy- sis[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43 (2): 390- 398.
18	崔明明, 汪鹏. 空空作战飞机敏感性分析研究[J]. 航空电子技术, 2020, 51 (3): 34- 40.
	CUI M M , WANG P . Sensitivity analysis of air-to-air combat aircraft[J]. Avionics Technology, 2020, 51 (3): 34- 40.

设备及参数类型	表示符号
数据中心出口网关(data center gateway, DCGW)	D
架顶交换机(top of rack, TOR)	T
行间交换机(end of row, EOR)	E
服务器(Server)	S
虚拟交换机(Vswitch)	Vs
虚拟机(virtual machine, VM)	V
平均故障间隔时间	α
故障检测率	β
故障检测时间	γ
自动维修率	δ
自动维修时间	ε
平均人工维修时间	ζ
故障倒换时间	η

参数类别	节点	全效应指数	节点动态业务介数	参数敏感度
T-γ	T1	μ1	e1	(μ1×e1)/(e1+e2+e3)
	T2	μ1	e2	(μ1×e2)/(e1+e2+e3)
	T3	μ1	e3	(μ1×e3)/(e1+e2+e3)
T-β	T1	μ2	e1	(μ2×e1)/(e1+e2+e3)
	T2	μ2	e2	(μ2×e2)/(e1+e2+e3)
	T3	μ2	e3	(μ2×e3)/(e1+e2+e3)
T-ε	T1	μ3	e1	(μ3×e1)/(e1+e2+e3)
	T2	μ3	e2	(μ3×e2)/(e1+e2+e3)
	T3	μ3	e3	(μ3×e3)/(e1+e2+e3)

节点类型	α/年	β	γ/s	δ	ε/min	ζ/h
DCGW	D-α	D-β	D-γ			D-ζ
EOR	T-α	T-β	T-γ			T-ζ
TOR	S-α	S-β	S-γ			S-ζ
Server	Vs-α	Vs-β	Vs-γ			Vs-ζ
Vswitch	V-α	V-β	V-γ	Vs-δ	Vs-ε	V-ζ
VM	D-α	D-β	D-γ	V-δ	V-ε	D-ζ

参数类别	符号表示	试验取值空间
D-α	x₁	[10, 100]
T-α	x₂	[10, 100]
S-α	x₃	[10, 100]
Vs-α	x₄	[1, 5]
V-α	x₅	[1, 5]
D-β	x₆	[0.5, 1]
T-β	x₇	[0.5, 1]
S-β	x₈	[0.5, 1]
Vs-β	x₉	[0.5, 1]
V-β	x₁₀	[0.5, 1]
D-γ	x₁₁	[10, 100]
T-γ	x₁₂	[10, 100]
S-γ	x₁₃	[10, 100]
Vs-γ	x₁₄	[100, 500]
V-γ	x₁₅	[100, 500]
Vs-δ	x₁₆	[0.5, 1]
V-δ	x17	[0.5, 1]
Vs-ε	x18	[2, 20]
V-ε	x19	[2, 20]
D-ζ	x20	[1, 10]
T-ζ	x21	[1, 10]
S-ζ	x22	[1, 10]
Vs-ζ	x23	[1, 10]
V-ζ	x24	[1, 10]
η/s	x25	[10, 100]

试验序号	A业务可用度	B业务可用度	C₁业务可用度
1	0.999 726 57	0.999 953 51	0.999 733 67
2	0.999 941 18	0.999 837 04	0.999 940 10
3	0.999 938 58	0.999 937 87	0.999 861 58
4	0.999 813 38	0.999 887 43	0.999 803 73
5	0.999 841 17	0.999 935 20	0.999 819 88
6	0.999 914 88	0.999 954 98	0.999 910 53
7	0.999 336 15	0.999 792 39	0.999 302 83
8	0.999 866 31	0.999 929 16	0.999 883 00
9	0.999 923 75	0.999 824 19	0.999 945 69
10	0.999 898 72	0.999 844 48	0.999 940 46
11	0.999 886 04	0.999 557 13	0.999 899 87
12	0.999 873 32	0.999 959 56	0.999 910 18
13	0.999 901 35	0.999 393 98	0.999 878 09
14	0.999 527 64	0.999 867 18	0.999 577 44
15	0.999 925 17	0.999 736 42	0.999 924 93
16	0.999 526 67	0.999 805 94	0.999 526 09
17	0.999 536 75	0.999 817 63	0.999 530 32
18	0.999 647 07	0.999 864 88	0.999 669 51
19	0.999 870 36	0.999 846 31	0.999 843 77
20	0.999 932 09	0.999 765 53	0.999 946 361

Multi-parameter sensitivity analysis of network function virtualization application availability

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 14

References 18

Related Articles 11

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

参数类别	全效应指数	敏感性排序
x₁	0.016 466 224 592 747 113	4
x₂	0.009 913 968 306 848 282	5
x₃	0.001 877 301 569 933 142 4	19
x₄	0.356 087 742 114 631 6	1
x₅	0.003 279 350 057 667 429	13
x₆	0.002 012 141 364 724 232 4	18
x₇	0.003 903 993 177 449 823	9
x₈	0.002 312 058 958 147 999	16
x₉	0.003 131 933 699 611 006	14
x₁₀	0.002 896 336 099 642 445	15
x₁₁	0.001 724 117 038 050 838	20
x₁₂	0.001 621 284 080 379 815 6	21
x₁₃	0.000 822 124 373 806 227 8	25
x₁₄	0.003 605 802 422 055 061 4	11
x₁₅	0.001 439 819 917 335 080 2	23
x₁₆	0.337 061 850 171 556 5	2
x₁₇	0.001 588 146 431 073 956	22
x₁₈	0.002 054 177 537 911 804 4	17
x₁₉	0.001 323 721 483 049 491 6	24
x₂₀	0.004 472 546 440 160 009	8
x₂₁	0.006 190 901 989 501 568	6
x₂₂	0.003 588 929 127 696 481 2	12
x₂₃	0.225 225 886 284 231 9	3
x₂₄	0.006 120 817 800 265 88	7
x₂₅	0.003 851 087 147 323 871	10

节点	仿真时间/年					节点动态业务介数比例均值
节点	100	200	300	400	500	节点动态业务介数比例均值
Vs1	125	254	436	534	672	0.37272
Vs2	121	212	417	479	676	0.3466
Vs3	78	192	323	412	596	0.2807

参数变量	主效应图平均斜率	平均斜率绝对值排序	敏感性排序
x₁	0.000 050	4	4
x₂	0.000 025	5	5
x₃	0.000 012	9	19
x₄	0.000 225	1	1
x₅	0.000 015	6	13
x₆	0.000 001	20	18
x₇	0.000 005	15	9
x₈	0.000 001	20	16
x₉	0.000 011	10	14
x₁₀	0.000 001	20	15
x₁₁	-0.000 006	13	20
x₁₂	-0.000 003	16	21
x₁₃	-0.000 003	16	25
x₁₄	-0.000 001	20	11
x₁₅	-0.000 001	20	23
x₁₆	0.000 202	2	2
x₁₇	0.000 001	20	22
x₁₈	-0.000 008	12	17
x₁₉	-0.000 002	18	24
x₂₀	-0.000 015	6	8
x₂₁	-0.000 010	11	6
x₂₂	-0.000 013	8	12
x₂₃	-0.000 175	3	3
x₂₄	-0.000 002	18	7
x₂₅	-0.000 006	13	10

[1]	Xing PAN, Zhenyu ZHANG, Yanmei ZHANG, Ranran WANG. Equipment SoS support effectiveness evaluation based on Sobol sensitivity analysis [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43(2): 390-398.
[2]	Biao LI, Liwen WANG, Zhiwei XING, Qian LUO. Effectiveness evaluation of ground support process for transit flight [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(7): 1543-1549.
[3]	BU Bing, WANG Zhuojian, PAN Hongsheng. Optimal allocation of multiaircraft universal support equipments based on Petri nets in grass roots level [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41(2): 349-357.
[4]	YANG Yingjie1, YU Yongli1, ZHANG Liu1, ZHANG Wei2. Sensitivity analysis and parameters optimization for equipment maintenance support simulation system [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38(3): 575-581.
[5]	FANG Xin-peng，YAN Wei-sheng，ZHANG Fu-bin，LI Jun-bing. Formation geometry of underwater positioning based on multiple USV/AUV [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2014, 36(5): 947-951.
[6]	WANG Yong-hua， JIANG Ke-yi， SUN Tao， YANG Xin-yi， ZHU Fei-xiang. Research on performance deterioration of aero-engine based on clone selection algorithm [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2013, 35(6): 1236-1241.
[7]	MA Jian, SUN Xiu-xia. Sensitivity analysis on attribute weight ascertained by comparison method in multiple attribute decision making [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 33(3): 585-589.
[8]	LONG Teng，LIU Li. Parallel GSE method and its application in optimization for coupled systems [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2010, 32(9): 1898-1902.
[9]	WANG Xian-yu 1，JU Xiao-feng 2. Evaluation of quality economic rules of large-scale and complex military products based on DEA [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2010, 32(3): 552-556.
[10]	FAN Pei-lei, ZHANG Xiao-jin, YANG Tao. Method of Pareto improved solutions based on sensitivity analysis [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2009, 31(12): 2977-2981.
[11]	SUN Shi-yan,WANG Hang-yu,SHI Zhang-song. null [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2009, 31(11): 2645-2647 .