US 6,473,791 B1Grant
Object load balancing
Issue Date:2002-10-29
•40 Claims
•10 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
Intelligent Trust Management provides a centralized security facility that gives system components a flexible mechanism for implementing security policies. System components such as applications create a request describing an action that needs to be checked against an appropriate security policy. The request is given to a trust system that determines which policy object applies to the request, and may pass request arguments to the policy. The policy objects include executable code that uses any arguments along with dynamically obtained variable information to make a decision. The decision is returned to the system component, which then operates accordingly. Policy objects may maintain state and interface with the user independent of the system component in order to obtain information to make their decisions. Policy objects may call other policy objects and/or mathematically combine the results of other policy objects to make a decision.
Metadata
Assignee
- Microsoft Corporation
Inventors
- Mohsen Al-Ghosein
- Jan S. Gray
- Amit Mital
- Rodney Limprecht
Application Information
Application Number:US 09/135,106
Filing Date:1998-08-17
Priority Date:1998-08-17
Art Unit:7
Classifications
IPC:
G06F 942
Field of Search:
709100709310709312709315709317709320709203709223709224709217709330
Patent Drawings (10 sheets)
Description
Field of the Invention
[0002] The invention relates generally to computer systems, and more particularly to improvements in trust management for computer systems.
Background of the Invention
[0003] Trust management is directed to the concept of controlling decisions made by system components such as applications with respect to certain potentially dangerous actions. In general, to make an appropriate decision, an application's desired action is verified against a policy. A policy for a particular action is a set of rules that determine whether that particular action is allowed or denied. By way of example, a web browser may make a decision on whether to download executable code from the Internet based on a policy comprising explicit user preferences and the validity of a digital signature on the code. Similarly, a certificate authority makes a decision whether to issue a certificate based on whether the requester complies with its policy for establishing its identity, while a secure operating system such as Microsoft Windows NT decides whether to log on a user based on a policy of whether the correct account password was supplied, the account is not locked out and whether other constraints, such as logon time and date restrictions, are not violated.
[0004] However, although in general the operation of verifying a request for action against a policy is common to trust management in applications, policy evaluation implementations are different in each application. For example, policies are represented in different ways in each application, and sometimes difficult for users to locate or recognize. Moreover, because the policies are built into the applications, the policies are essentially static and only minimally modifiable as limited by a few optional settings. As a result, there is no easy way to modify or add new policy constraints to policies used by applications to control their decisions, nor is there an easy way to enforce new domain-wide policies. Administrators of large (enterprise) networks are often forced to go to great lengths to uniformly implement policies.
Summary of the Invention
[0005] Briefly, the present invention provides a system and method of using a policy to make a decision on a proposed action of a system component such as an application. In accordance with the present invention, policies are centrally maintained system resources available to any system component through an intelligent trust manager. Action information including the proposed action is received from a system component, and the action information is used to obtain a policy corresponding to the proposed action. To this end, the policy may be implemented in a COM object mapped by a policy manager to the action identified in the action information. The policy dynamically obtains variable information at the policy from a source independent of the system component, such as via state maintained in the policy, from other context, through a user interface, or from an external source such as a website. The policy makes a decision via executable code therein, based on the variable information obtained thereby, and returns the decision to the system component.
[0006] Other advantages will become apparent from the following detailed description when taken in conjunction with the drawings, in which:
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0007] FIG. 1 is a block diagram representing a computer system into which the present invention may be incorporated;
[0008] FIG. 2 is a block diagram generally representing the conceptual model of the present invention;
[0009] FIG. 3 is a block diagram generally representing the various components for implementing the trust management system of the present invention;
[0010] FIG. 4 is a timing chart representing the steps taken by the various components of the trust management system to produce a policy decision;
[0011] FIGS. 5A-5D are block diagrams representing various examples of how a plurality of policies may be combined to produce a final decision; and
[0012] FIG. 6 is a representation of an editor mechanism for centrally administering policy objects.
Detailed Description
[0013] Exemplary Operating Environment
[0014] FIG. 1 and the following discussion are intended to provide a brief general description of a suitable computing environment in which the invention may be implemented. Although not required, the invention will be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a personal computer. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures and the like that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Moreover, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced with other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
[0015] With reference to FIG. 1, an exemplary system for implementing the invention includes a general purpose computing device in the form of a conventional personal computer 20 or the like, including a processing unit 21, a system memory 22, and a system bus 23 that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit 21. The system bus 23 may be any of several types of bus structures including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. The system memory includes read-only memory (ROM) 24 and random access memory (RAM) 25. A basic input/output system 26 (BIOS), containing the basic routines that help to transfer information between elements within the personal computer 20, such as during start-up, is stored in ROM 24. The personal computer 20 may further include a hard disk drive 27 for reading from and writing to a hard disk, not shown, a magnetic disk drive 28 for reading from or writing to a removable magnetic disk 29, and an optical disk drive 30 for reading from or writing to a removable optical disk 31 such as a CD-ROM or other optical media. The hard disk drive 27, magnetic disk drive 28, and optical disk drive 30 are connected to the system bus 23 by a hard disk drive interface 32, a magnetic disk drive interface 33, and an optical drive interface 34, respectively. The drives and their associated computer-readable media provide non-volatile storage of computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules and other data for the personal computer 20. Although the exemplary environment described herein employs a hard disk, a removable magnetic disk 29 and a removable optical disk 31, it should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that other types of computer readable media which can store data that is accessible by a computer, such as magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, digital video disks, Bernoulli cartridges, random access memories (RAMs), read-only memories (ROMs) and the like may also be used in the exemplary operating environment.
[0016] A number of program modules may be stored on the hard disk, magnetic disk 29, optical disk 31, ROM 24 or RAM 25, including an operating system 35 (preferably Windows NT), one or more application programs 36, other program modules 37 and program data 38. A user may enter commands and information into the personal computer 20 through input devices such as a keyboard 40 and pointing device 42. Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 21 through a serial port interface 46 that is coupled to the system bus, but may be connected by other interfaces, such as a parallel port, game port or universal serial bus (USB). A monitor 47 or other type of display device is also connected to the system bus 23 via an interface, such as a video adapter 48. In addition to the monitor 47, personal computers typically include other peripheral output devices (not shown), such as speakers and printers.
[0017] The personal computer 20 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as a remote computer 49. The remote computer 49 may be another personal computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the personal computer 20, although only a memory storage device 50 has been illustrated in FIG. 1. The logical connections depicted in FIG. 1 include a local area network (LAN) 51 and a wide area network (WAN) 52. Such networking environments are commonplace in offices, enterprise-wide computer networks, Intranets and the Internet.
[0018] When used in a LAN networking environment, the personal computer 20 is connected to the local network 51 through a network interface or adapter 53. When used in a WAN networking environment, the personal computer 20 typically includes a modem 54 or other means for establishing communications over the wide area network 52, such as the Internet. The modem 54, which may be internal or external, is connected to the system bus 23 via the serial port interface 46. In a networked environment, program modules depicted relative to the personal computer 20, or portions thereof, may be stored in the remote memory storage device. It will be appreciated that the network connections shown are exemplary and other means of establishing a communications link between the computers may be used.
[0019] The preferred implementation of the present invention is described herein with reference to the Component Object Model (COM). COM is a well-documented technology in which clients access services provided by COM objects by accessing methods therein through interfaces of the COM objects. COM provides for extensibility and future compatibility, and moreover, because policies (described below) are COM objects, they may be written in well-known and easy-to-use scripting languages such as VBScript and Jscript, or more powerful languages such as C++. For purposes of simplicity, a detailed discussion of COM is not included herein; a detailed description of COM objects is provided in the reference entitled “Inside OLE,” second edition, Kraig Brockschmidt, Microsoft Press (1993), hereby incorporated by reference. Note that although COM is preferably used to implement the present invention, there is no intention to limit the present invention to a COM implementation. For example, as will be readily appreciated, the present invention may alternatively be implemented via application programming interface calls to functions or other equivalent implementations.
[0020] Intelligent Trust Management
[0021] FIG. 2 shows the general conceptual model of the present invention wherein system components 601-60n(e.g., applications) make calls to an intelligent trust manager 62 in order to have trust decisions made therefor in accordance with a predetermined policy. To obtain a decision, the intelligent trust manager 62 in turn communicates with a policy manager 64 to invoke an appropriate one of the policy objects 661-66n. The corresponding policy object (e.g. 663) makes an advisory decision, i.e., yes, no or insufficient information to make a determination, and returns the decision to the system component (e.g., 601) via the intelligent trust manager 62. Note that a request may correspond to more than one policy object, but for purposes of simplicity herein, a request will generally only be passed to one policy object. Note however, (as described in more detail below), the corresponding policy object may itself call on one or more other policy objects and use their decisions to make its final decision.
[0022] As represented in FIG. 2 and in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, policies are centrally maintained system resources available in a consistent manner to any system component of the system, yet policies are removed and isolated from the system components, and transparent thereto. To add a policy, the policy is appropriately registered like any other COM object, however for security purposes, the registration operation itself is typically subject to a policy, as described below. To replace a policy with another policy, the other policy is registered and the name binding (described below) changed so those system components using the name invoke the other policy instead of the existing policy. Among other benefits, the present invention thus allows policies to be shared by numerous system components, while essentially shielding the system components from the details of policy administration. Since policy objects are COM objects, they include executable code for making decisions, and moreover, may maintain state, generate their own user interface, and include one or more inference engines (deductive processes) to make decisions. In addition, they may be named, whereby administrators may intuitively locate and reference the appropriate policy object as needed, and may be digitally signed, which enables verifying the integrity of the policy object for security purposes, such as when registering and/or invoking the object. Note that although the various components are shown as directly connected in FIG. 2, it may be readily appreciated that the components and/or divisible portions thereof may be distributed throughout various systems of a network. Indeed, as will be described below, in enterprise networks, policies are often maintained throughout a domain, wherein client applications communicate with a domain server to access policies and receive decisions.
[0023] As shown in more detail in FIG. 3, and as represented in the timing chart of FIG. 4, the application (e.g., system component 601) initiates the decision making process when the application 601needs to determine whether a potentially dangerous action that it is proposing to take is allowed or forbidden in accordance with a policy. By way of example, a browser application (e.g., 601) that has been instructed by a user to download content from a website first will find out whether the action is allowable before following the instruction. To obtain a decision, the application 601bundles action information including a name or the like identifying the desired action and policy-specific arguments into a request 68 (e.g., a COM request object), and invokes a method of the intelligent trust manager 62 requesting a decision. Alternatively, one or more of the arguments may be maintained in an alternate location in the system, wherein the location is previously known to the policy, or the location is identified by the application 601. In addition, the application 601may pass optional evidence to the intelligent trust manager 62, such as a security identifier that may be required to access certain files with certain rights. Note that in the implementation described herein, the application 601needs to know which policy it is invoking, as well as the arguments expected by the policy. Alternatively, however, the application 601may query the intelligent trust manager 62 to ascertain the available policies and/or any requirements thereof.
[0024] When the intelligent trust manager 62 receives the request 68, the intelligent trust manager 62 extracts the action identifier from the passed information therein. The intelligent trust manager 62 provides the ITM policy manager 64 with the policy name, whereby the corresponding policy object (e.g., 663) is instantiated. Note that the ITM policy manager 64 includes or otherwise has access to a registry 70 (e.g., database, library, table or the like) that maps each action identifier to the appropriate policy object. More particularly, trust policy is a COM object implementing the ITrustPolicy interface. When the policy is queried for its decision about particular request for action, it receives a pointer to another COM object implementing ITrustable interface on input, and returns Trusted, Completely Trusted or Untrusted as output. The ITrustable interface is used encapsulate the application-specific request for action.
[0025] By way of example, consider the browser described above wherein a decision is needed on whether to download content from a site. In the request 68, the application 601identifies an action called “Fetch-URL” and also passes the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the site (e.g., www.site1.com) as an argument to the intelligent trust manager 62. The intelligent trust manager 62 takes the action identifier “Fetch-URL” and via the ITM policy manager 64, looks up and instantiates the corresponding policy object 663, i.e., “URL.dll” in the present example.
[0026] Once the corresponding policy object 663is instantiated, the intelligent trust manager 62 forwards the appropriate arguments 72 (including any optional evidence) thereto, along with any context 74 that may be available for passing to the policy object. For example, the intelligent trust manager 62 may pass information about the state of the machine, stack information, information about the application 601and so on to the policy object 663, such as when the intelligent trust manager 62 knows or otherwise believes that such information would be useful to the policy object 663in making its decision.
[0027] At this time, the policy object 663executes its internal code to make a decision. If the answer may be immediately decided as “Yes” or “No” based on the available information, the policy object 663returns its decision 76 to the application 601via the intelligent trust manager 62 (although it is alternatively feasible for the policy object to directly return the decision and any accompanying information to the application). Along with the decision 76, the policy object 663may return information such as its rationale for making the decision. Similarly, if desired, the intelligent trust manager 62 may supplement the return information and provide an (optionally) supplemented decision 78. In this manner, system components (e.g., applications) may modify their request as desired. For example, if a decision to access a file for read and write access is “No” because as reported back, a security identifier is needed, the requesting system component may choose to retry the request a second time with the security identifier bundled with the request.
[0028] Moreover, the policy object (e.g., 663) may respond that it is unable to make a determination based on the information currently available thereto, (i.e., “I don't know”). Along with such a response, the policy object may return a list or the like specifying the information that it needs to make a “Yes” or “No” decision. For example, a decision on whether to download a file may depend on what version of an application is being used. If the version information cannot, for example, be independently determined by the policy object, the policy object may respond that it is unable to make a determination, and identify the lack of the version information as the reason. The application may then supply the information in a subsequent request if it is able to do so.
[0029] In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the policy object is capable of making dynamic determinations based on additional variable information it obtains (i.e., receives or otherwise knows of) independent of the system component (e.g., application). For example, the context 74 passed by the intelligent trust manager 62 may be independent of the system component requesting the decision and make an otherwise “Yes” answer a “No” answer, and vice-versa. Moreover, the policy object may communicate with the user via its own user interface 80 completely independent of the system component.
[0030] By way of example, assume that the URL.dll policy 663is written so as to return a “No” decision for any website content exceeding a ratings guideline, unless a parental override password is provided. For purposes of this example, it may be assumed that the browser application 601is not aware of ratings, and is limited to either downloading the site's content or not doing so in accordance with the policy determination. Indeed, while contemporary browsers contain such ratings policies, as will be described herein, the present invention obviates the need for incorporating the policy into the browser application, whereby future browsers may very well not have any ratings policy.
[0031] When a request is made for a decision on www.site1.com, the policy object 663includes code for communicating with the site in order to determine the rating of the content that has been requested. Based on the rating, the policy object 663may immediately make its decision, i.e., if below a certain ratings threshold, respond “Yes.” However, rather than respond “No” to content above a certain ratings threshold, the policy object itself may be written to communicate through the user interface 80 to attempt to obtain a parental override password. Significantly, the policy object 663is able to dynamically adjust as information comes in, and may obtain additional information as needed independent of the application 601.
[0032] In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the policy objects are able to maintain variable state information 82, both while instantiated and, if needed, persistently by writing state data to a file or the like. The state information 82 may be used to make decisions dynamically and independent of the system component. For example, consider a policy that has been set up such that company managers may purchase items for the company from certain approved Internet sites so long as the managers' purchases as a whole do not total over ten-thousand dollars per month. In addition to verifying the site, the appropriate policy object may make a dynamic decision by temporarily adding the requested purchase price to an accumulated monthly total maintained as state information 82 in the policy object to decide whether to allow the requested purchase. Indeed, even more dynamically, the policy object may obtain the price from the site and multiply by a requested quantity to determine a requested purchase amount. In either event, if below the monthly limit, a “Yes” decision is returned and the total is increased. If “No,” a smaller purchase next time may instead be approved. Thus, the policy object dynamically decides based on a submitted amount (or possibly an item and quantity) against an accumulated variable total. As can be appreciated, the system component (e.g., application) that submits the purchase form need not know anything about the total, and only has to pass in the site URL and the requested amount (or quantity and item information). Note that this makes changing the policy such as by increasing the limit relatively simple, yet secure, as the limit need only be changed in one secure, centralized location rather than on every managers' separate copy of an application.
[0033] In accordance with another aspect of the invention, policies may be combined mathematically and/or built up in a hierarchical manner to make a decision. To this end, a policy can call other policies (which in turn can call still other policies) and use their decisions to make a final decision. For example, as shown in FIGS. 5A-5D, policy may decide “Yes” only if two other policies below it both decide “Yes” (FIG. 5A, Boolean AND), if one of two policies decide “Yes” (FIG. 5B, Boolean OR) and so on. A policy may also implement a voting scheme, for example, to decide “Yes” to an action if m out of n (e.g., three out of five) policies it calls decide “Yes” (FIG. 5C).
[0034] In addition, a policy may be flexibly written to accept arguments that inform that policy how to make its determination. For example, a Boolean policy may exist that takes as arguments the names of two or more other policies along with a logical operator (e.g., AND, OR, XOR), and returns a result based on the results of the other policies as combined by the logical operator. Similarly, a “voting” policy may exist that takes as input the total number of “Yes” votes needed from other policies to return a “Yes” vote, (wherein the names of the other polices may be passed as arguments or already known to the voting policy object). Result information may also be passed to a policy, e.g., for one system component, three or less “Yes” votes return a yes, but four or more return a “No”, while for another system component, one or more “Yes” votes are needed for a “Yes” result.
[0035] In an alternative implementation, policy objects may return a result using a particular Boolean algebra scheme based on a “Trusted, Completely Trusted and Untrusted” model. In general, “Trusted” corresponds to “Yes,” “Untrusted” to “No,” while Completely Trusted” corresponds to “Yes, and do not process further.” The “Completely Trusted” result is useful in situations wherein subpolicies vote to make a decision, and certain (“Completely Trusted”) subpolicies are given more weight than others. As can be readily appreciated, other schemes (e.g., subpolicies can return multiple votes based on their weight) may also be implemented.
[0036] Moreover, since policies can call other policies, a policy may make its decision by selecting other policies based on virtually any variable criteria, such as the number of logged in users or the time of day. The following pseudocode along with FIG. 5D demonstrates this concept, wherein according to a general URL policy, one of two particular URL policies (URL-working-hours or URL after-hours) are in effect depending on the time of day:
| URL Policy: |
|---|
[0037] The system component requesting the URL policy decision need know nothing about which policy is actually in effect, as it only requests a decision on an action from the URL policy, which unknown to the system component, calls on one of the other two policies to make the decision. While of course such a simplified example may be implemented in a single policy, the advantages and flexibility provided by the ability to combine policies into more and more complex policies can be readily appreciated. For example, the “working-hours” policy of the above example may be highly complex and regularly modified while the “after-hours” policy may be simple, never changed and thus left intact.
[0038] Although not necessary to the present invention, to facilitate the administration of policies, a management tool (ITM Administrator) 84 is provided (FIG. 2). The management tool 84 makes it possible for administrators to view and centrally adjust policies affecting operation of the operating system and system components and applications at one time, using a system-provided configuration editor 86 (FIG. 6). As can be readily appreciated, this single, centralized tool is a significant advantage over multiple, widespread application-specific utilities. The management tool 84 communicates with the ITM policy manager 64 to display the editor interface 86 (FIG. 5) for viewing and adjusting the policies. Note that since policies are COM objects, they may be organized under folders in a logical, hierarchical grouping. Thus, as shown in FIG. 6, administrators may quickly locate a policy such as the “Active Content Policy” under the “Intranet” folder.
[0039] Moreover, as represented in FIG. 3, each policy object preferably includes its own administrator user interface 88. The administrator user interface 88 is opened when the administrator mouse clicks or otherwise appropriately selects a named policy. This provides for simple patches, updates and the like. For example, as described above, the purchase limit maintained as state within a policy object may be adjusted by the administrator via the administrator user interface. Note that with the present invention, system components are not directly bound to any particular dynamic link library (dll), and thus policies may be changed without needing to modify the system components (e.g., applications) or their settings.
[0040] It should be noted that a policy object itself governs the other policy objects that are used and how they are used. For example, a policy object may be present that decides not to allow any other policy object to be added or changed unless an administrator that has been authenticated makes the change and a digital signature of the policy object is first verified. In other words, a governing policy requires verification of a digital signature before a policy may be registered. Similarly, a policy may ensure that no policy may be invoked without first verifying a digital signature on that policy.
[0041] Note that policy objects may be written in advance (e.g., by third parties) and grouped into packages 90 (FIG. 2) or the like that are appropriate for a given system. Thus, a user only need install a policy package that is appropriate, and modify policies as needed from there. For example, policy objects for home users and small networks are likely to be quite different than policies of enterprise networks. Indeed, within an enterprise network, an administrator often needs to control many hundreds of machines, users and system components, which may be considerably difficult if a system component such as an application does not have explicit support for such administration.
[0042] The present invention enables the establishment and enforcement of policies that apply to the entire enterprise network. For example, an enterprise policy may be to disable the download of any unsigned executables from outside of the enterprise Intranet, ask a user before downloading signed code, but install any code that is from the Intranet without user intervention. To be effective, this policy needs to apply domain-wide, i.e., every user must be affected. To facilitate domain-wide administration, the Intelligent Trust Management System of the present invention enables administrators to designate some policies as “domain-wide, whereby the policy is automatically replicated to every machine participating in the domain, whereby these policies affect every single user.
[0043] Lastly, it should be noted that while the above-described model is advisory in that it is up to the system component (e.g., application) to comply with the policy decision, it is feasible to have an enforcement model wherein policy decisions prevent applications from taking denied actions. For example, applications may be run in security contexts set up by a policy, whereby that policy and other called policies would determine the applications' access to system resources.
[0044] While the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative constructions, certain illustrated embodiments thereof are shown in the drawings and have been described above in detail. It should be understood, however, that there is no intention to limit the invention to the specific forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, alternative constructions, and equivalents falling within the spirit and scope of the invention.
Claims
Post-issuance certificates present
The text shown below may not reflect later post-issuance changes.
We claim:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing an architecture accommodating load balanced instantiation of software objects within a server group of a plurality of server computers, the architecture being transparent to the objects, the method comprising the steps:
interposing a wrapper between a first load balanced object instantiated at a host server computer of the server group and a client of the first load balanced object, the wrapper intercepting calls to the first load balanced object to generate a performance measurement at the host server computer transparently to the first load balanced object;
at a router computer, monitoring performance at the server computers in the server group by collecting the performance measurement from the host server computer and at least one other performance measurement from other server computers in the server group to ascertain measured performance at the servers; and
when measured performance of the host server is preferred over measured performance of other server computers in the server group, instantiating a second load balanced object on the host server computer as a result of the performance measurement.
2. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing the steps of claim 1.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein
the first object is of an object class;
the performance measurement is identified by object class as a measurement of performance for objects having the object class of the first object;
the monitoring step determines performance at server computers in the server group for objects having the object class of the first object; and
the instantiating step instantiates the second object at the host server computer based on whether the second object has an object class matching the object class of the first object.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein a plurality of objects of a same specified object class are instantiated on a selected target group associated with the object class, the target group being a subset of the server group of server computers.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein a selected replaceable load balancing engine designated for an object class determines when monitored performance of the host server computer is preferred over monitored performance of other server computers in the server group.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein the monitoring step comprises periodically blending the performance measurement with plural other similar performance measurements from the host server computer to generate a performance value indicative of performance at the host server computer, the blending sufficiently delayed by a time interval to dampen variance in the performance value.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein the time interval is selected by a system administrator.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the performance measurement is generated transparently to the first object by a server-side policy of the first object, wherein the policy is invoked by the wrapper.
9. The method of claim 8 wherein
the server-side policy is shared by a third object at the server computer; and
the server-side policy generates an additional performance measurement associated with the third object, wherein the additional performance measurement is collected by the router computer to monitor host server computer performance.
10. The method of claim 8 wherein the performance measurement indicates method response time at the host server computer as generated by the server-side policy of the first object, the policy operative to observe a first time as a result of an enter event sent to the policy before a method call to the object, the policy further operative to observe a second time as a result of a leave event sent to the policy after the method call to the object, the policy further operative to generate the performance measurement by subtracting the first time from the second time.
11. The method of claim 8 wherein the performance measurement indicates database load as observed at the host server computer transparently to the first object by code invoked by the wrapper.
12. The method of claim 8 wherein the performance measurement indicates database access latency as observed at the host server computer transparently to the first object by code invoked by the wrapper.
13. In a computer network, a load balancing service for distributing object related resource requests among a plurality of load bearing targets identified by target identifiers, the load balancing service comprising:
a routing table mapping object class identifiers to target identifiers, at least one of the mapped object class identifiers mapped to a target identifier identifying a target exhibiting a favorable processing metric for processing objects having an object class of the mapped object class identifier; and
a system service for receiving an object related resource request comprising a supplied object class identifier matching an object class identifier in the table, the system service operative to route the resource request to the target identified by the target identifier mapped to by the supplied class identifier in the routing table.
14. The service of claim 13 wherein the system service is an operating system service.
15. The service of claim 13 wherein the target identifiers in the routing table identify server computers in the computer network.
16. The service of claim 13 wherein target identifiers in the routing table identify threads at server computers in the computer network.
17. The service of claim 13 wherein the target identifiers in the routing table identify processes at server computers in the computer network.
18. The load balancing service of claim 13 further comprising:
a collective metric data store operative to receive performance values indicative of the targets' performance according to a processing metric; and
a load balancing engine operative to dynamically adjust mappings in the routing table to map an object class identifier to a target identifier identifying a target having a more favorable performance value in the collective metric data store according to the processing metric.
19. The load balancing service of claim 18 wherein the collective metric data store comprises a dampened performance value indicative of a plurality of blended received performance values, at least certain of the blended received performance values of sufficient age to dampen variance in the dampened performance value in the collective metric data store; and
the load balancing engine consults the dampened performance value to dynamically adjust mappings in the routing table.
20. In a router computer, a load balancing service for distributing an object creation request comprising an object creation request characteristic among a target group comprising a plurality of server computers, the load balancing service comprising:
a host server computer selection means for selecting a host server computer to host the object creation request, the host server computer selection means operative to accept a supplied object creation request characteristic and specify a selected host server computer, the specified host server computer selected by the host server computer selection means from the target group based on the specified object creation request characteristic;
a system service for routing the component creation request to a server computer in the target group, the system service operative to accept the component creation request comprising the object creation request characteristic, supply the object creation request characteristic to the host server computer selection means, accept from the host server computer selection means a specified selected host server computer and route the object creation request thereto.
21. The load balancing service of claim 20 wherein the object creation request characteristic of the object creation request is a class identifier, and the host server computer selection means specifies a server computer having an activated instantiated object of the class identifier.
22. The load balancing service of claim 20 wherein the object creation request characteristic of the object creation request is a client identity identifying a client computer, and the host server computer selection means specifies a server computer to which object creation requests for the client computer have previously been routed based on the previously-routed requests.
23. The load balancing service of claim 20 wherein the object creation request characteristic is selected from the group consisting of a class identifier of the object creation request, a client computer identity of a computer issuing the object creation request, and a process identity of a process issuing the object creation request.
24. The load balancing service of claim 20 wherein the object creation request is generated by a process executing in an execution environment with associated environment data defining the execution environment, and the object creation request characteristic of the object creation request is the execution environment data.
25. The load balancing service of claim 20 wherein the target group is dynamically adjustable to add or remove a specified server computer from the group based on instructions provided by the specified server computer to the router computer.
26. The load balancing service of claim 20 wherein the object creation request characteristic of the object creation request is a class identifier, the load balancing service further comprising:
a global routing table mapping object class identifiers to host server computers in the target group,
wherein the host server computer selection means consists of a mapping function on the global routing table.
27. The load balancing service of claim 26 wherein the global routing table is dynamically updated with processing metric data retrieved from the server computers in the target group.
28. The load balancing service of claim 27 wherein the processing metric data is generated by a RPC layer between the router computer and the server computers.
29. In a computer network, an object creation architecture for balancing a load of object creation requests among a plurality of server computers, the architecture comprising:
a routing table comprising a plurality of stored object class identifiers, wherein at least one stored object class identifier is associated with a server computer;
at a router computer, a load balancing service responsive to a supplied object class identifier in an object creation request from a client program on a client computer and operative to select a server associated with the supplied object class identifier in the routing table, the load balancing service further operative to route the object creation request to an object creation service at the selected server computer;
at the selected server computer, an object creation service responsive to the object creation request from the load balancing service and operative to create a server object of an object class associated with the supplied identifier and further operative to assemble a stub with the server object, the stub operative to monitor calls to the server object to observe and store in a metric data store at the selected server computer a performance value, the performance value indicative of performance at the selected server computer according to a processing metric;
at the router computer, a metric collector operative to retrieve the observed performance value from the metric data store and integrate the performance value into a collective metric data store, wherein the collective metric data store comprises metric data from plural server computers; and
a load balancing engine at the router computer operative to consult the collective metric data store and associate in the routing table an object class identifier with a server having a performance value determined superior according to the processing metric by the load balancing engine.
30. The architecture of claim 29 wherein the load balancing engine is a first load balancing engine operative to associate a first class identifier with a server, the architecture further comprising:
a second load balancing engine operative to consult the collective metric data store and associate in the routing table a second class identifier with a server having a performance value determined superior according to the processing metric by the second load balancing engine.
31. In a computer network comprising a router computer, a plurality of server computers and a plurality of client computers, an architecture for balancing a load of computer object processing among the server computers, the architecture comprising:
a routing table at the router computer associating object classes with server computers;
a monitor at a server computer, the monitor operative to intercept a reference to an instantiated first software object of a monitored object class to transparently conduct and record a processing metric observation, the monitor further operative to send a processing metric value based on the processing metric observation and indicative of performance at the server computer;
a load balancing service at the router computer, the load balancing service operative to receive a client computer request to create a second object of the monitored object class and route the request to a selected server associated with the monitored object class in the routing table, the load balancing service responsive to the processing metric value sent by the monitor to associate a server having a favorable processing metric value with the monitored object class in the routing table; and
an object creation service at the selected server operative to receive the request from the load balancing service and create an object of the monitored object class.
32. The architecture of claim 31 wherein the load balancing service comprises a plurality of load balancing engines, each load balancing engine operative to modify associations in the routing table relating to an object class particular to the load balancing engine.
33. The architecture of claim 31 wherein the monitor comprises a plurality of metric trackers, each metric tracker operative to conduct and record a performance metric observation relating to an object class particular to the metric tracker.
34. In a computer network having a router computer and a plurality of server computers in a target group, a method for balancing object processing among the plurality of server computers, the method comprising:
conducting plural processing performance metric observations associated with a software object class at a server computer;
periodically blending the observations into a representative value indicative of performance at the server computer;
periodically transferring the representative value from the server computer to a router computer to provide plural successive representative values to the router computer, wherein transferring is sufficiently delayed to facilitate blending a number of observations to dampen variance in the successive representative values;
receiving at a router computer the plural representative values from the server computer and plural representative values from at least one other server computer in the target group; and
routing resource requests received by the router computer to a server computer in the target group having a representative value indicative of more favorable performance than another server computer in the target group.
35. The method of claim 34 wherein the blending step comprises calculating the average of plural response times observed at the server computer.
36. In a computer network comprising a client computer and a server computer, a computer implemented method for accommodating object transparent rebalance messages from the server computer to the client computer, the method comprising:
generating a proxy at the client computer for receiving and forwarding calls from a client program to a software object;
generating a stub at the server computer for receiving and forwarding calls from the proxy to the software object;
establishing a connection between the proxy and the stub;
providing the proxy with rebalance message receptive code run by the proxy transparently to the server object and the client program;
providing the stub with rebalance message generating code run by the stub transparently to the server object and the client program;
when the stub is referenced, determining in the rebalance message generating code whether performance at the server computer is below an acceptable minimum; and
if performance at the server computer is below the acceptable minimum, sending a rebalance message from the rebalance message generating code to the rebalance message receptive code.
37. The method of claim 36 wherein the software object is a first software object, the method further comprising:
upon receiving a rebalance message in the rebalance receptive code, severing the connection between the proxy and the stub and creating a second software object on a computer other than the server computer.
38. A load balancing service for balancing object processing among a plurality of server computers by accommodating object creation requests from a plurality of client programs executing on a plurality of client computers, the load balancing service comprising:
at a client computer, a configuration database for associating object classes with remote computers, at least one object class in the configuration database associated with a router computer;
at the client computer, an operating system service operative to receive an object creation request comprising an object class, the operating system service further operative to direct the object creation request to a computer associated with the object class in the configuration database;
at the router computer, a routing table for associating an object class with a server computer;
at the router computer, a routing service operative to receive the object creation request from the client computer and route the request to a selected server computer associated with the request's object class in the routing table;
at the selected server computer, a class instance creator operative to receive the object creation request and create an object of the request's object class;
an operating system service for providing a wrapper around the object, the wrapper comprising a method invocation service, the method invocation service operative to receive invocations of a method of the object from a client program and forward the invocation to the object, the method invocation service further operative to observe execution of the method by the object to produce an object class method performance observation, the object class method performance observation associated with the object class of the object and indicative of the method's performance according to a processing metric;
an observation collection service at the router computer operative to collect and store the object class method performance observation and at least one other object class method performance observation in a collective observation store from a target group, the target group comprising the selected server computer and other plural server computers; and
a load balancing engine at the router computer operative to evaluate the object class method performance observations from the target group to associate a favorable server computer in the target group with a selected object class in the routing table, the evaluated observations associated with the selected object class in the collective observation store, the favorable server computer having a more favorable object class method performance observation than another server in the target group according to the processing metric.
39. The computer-readable medium of claim 38 wherein the processing metric is response time for a method of an object of the object class indicated by the selected identifier indicative of an object class, and the data structure is sharable among a plurality of load balancing engines at the router computer and an activator at the router computer.
40. A computer-readable medium having stored thereon a data structure for routing object creation requests from a remote client computer, the data structure comprising:
identifiers indicative of an object class; and
a server identifier associated in the data structure with a selected one of the identifiers indicative of an object class, the server identifier indicative of a server computer providing to a router computer favorable processor metric observations for processing objects of the object class indicated by the selected one of the identifiers indicative of an object class;
wherein the data structure is an accelerated routing table comprising a lookup table associating a server identifier with a hash function of an identifier indicative of an object class.
Patent Citations (38)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US4752928(A) | 1988-06-01 | Chapman et al. | Applicant |
| US5093914(A) | 1992-03-01 | Coplien et al. | Applicant |
| US5125091(A) | 1992-06-01 | Staas, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US5151987(A) | 1992-09-01 | Abraham et al. | Applicant |
| US5168441(A) | 1992-12-01 | Onarheim et al. | Applicant |
| US5179702(A) | 1993-01-01 | Spix et al. | Applicant |
| US5212793(A) | 1993-05-01 | Donica et al. | Applicant |
| US5315703(A) | 1994-05-01 | Matheny et al. | Applicant |
| US5442791(A) | 1995-08-01 | Wrabetz et al. | Applicant |
| US5459837(A) | 1995-10-01 | Caccavale | Applicant |
| US5485617(A) | 1996-01-01 | Stutz et al. | Applicant |
| US5524238(A) | 1996-06-01 | Miller et al. | Applicant |
| US5574918(A) | 1996-11-01 | Hurley et al. | Applicant |
| US5577251(A) | 1996-11-01 | Hamilton et al. | Applicant |
| US5579520(A) | 1996-11-01 | Bennett | Applicant |
| US5687370(A) | 1997-11-01 | Garst et al. | Applicant |
| US5689708(A) | 1997-11-01 | Regnier et al. | Applicant |
| US5752038(A) | 1998-05-01 | Blake et al. | Applicant |
| US5765174(A) | 1998-06-01 | Bishop et al. | Applicant |
| US5790789(A) | 1998-08-01 | Suarez | Applicant |
| US5802291(A) | 1998-09-01 | Balick et al. | Applicant |
| US5838916(A) | 1998-11-01 | Domenikos et al. | Applicant |
| US5881225(A) | 1999-03-01 | Worth | Applicant |
| US5884316(A) | 1999-03-01 | Bernstein et al. | Applicant |
| US5890161(A) | 1999-03-01 | Helland et al. | Applicant |
| US5907675(A) | 1999-05-01 | Aahlad | Applicant |
| US5941947(A) | 1999-08-01 | Brown et al. | Applicant |
| US5958004(A) | 1999-09-01 | Helland et al. | Applicant |
| US5958010(A) | 1999-09-01 | Agarwal et al. | Applicant |
| US6014666(A) | 2000-01-01 | Helland et al. | Applicant |
| US6026428(A) | 2000-02-01 | Hutchison et al. | Applicant |
| US6105147(A) | 2000-08-01 | Molloy | Applicant |
| US6134594(A) | 2000-10-01 | Helland et al. | Applicant |
| EP559100 | 1993-02-01 | Applicant | |
| EP623876 | 1994-03-01 | Applicant | |
| EP638863 | 1994-10-01 | Applicant | |
| EP738966 | 1996-04-01 | Applicant | |
| EP777178 | 1996-11-01 | Applicant |
Non-Patent Literature (35)
- “An Object-Oriented Database System Jasmine: Implementation Application, and Extension”, Hiroshi Ishikawa, et al., Apr. 1996.Applicant
- Orfali et al., The Essential Distributed Objects Survival Guide, pp. 423-452, 1996.Applicant
- Brockschmidt, Inside Ole, pp. 277-338, 1995.Applicant
- Nance, Balance the Load with Transaction Server, Byte Magazine, pp. 1-8, 1997.Applicant
- Tomsen, “Virtually Crash Proof Your Web Site with IISS4.0,” Microsoft Interactive Developer, vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 41-46, Oct., 1997.Applicant
- Go, “Internet load-balancing solutions: Balance on the back end,” InfoWorld, pp. 72-86, Mar., 1998.Applicant
- Lam, “Building Scalable Apps,” PC Tech Magazine, pp. 209-214, Apr., 1998.Applicant
- “DCOM Technical Overview,” Microsoft Press, pp. 1-32, Apr., 1998.Applicant
- Horstmann & Kirtland, “DCOM Architecture,” Microsoft Press, pp. 1-55, Apr., 1998.Applicant
- U.S. application No. 09/071,594, Fox et al., filed May 1, 1998.Applicant
- Jajodia, “Database Security and Privacy,” (Tucker, editor) The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook, chapter 49, pp. 1112-1124 (Dec. 1996).Applicant
- Sandhu, “Authentication, Access Control, and Instrusion Detection,” (Tucker, editor) The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook, chapter 91, pp. 1929-1948 (Dec. 1996).Applicant
- Moffett, J.D., Specification of Management Policies and Discretionary Access Control. In M. S. Sloman, editor, Network and Distributed Systems Management, chapter 17, pp. 455-479. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Applicant
- Sloman, M. and Moffett, J.D., “Managing Distributed Systems”, Domino Project Report, Imperial College, U.K. Sep. 1989.Applicant
- Wiederhold, G.: Mediators in the Architecture of Future Information Systems. IEEE Computer, 25(3), 1992.Applicant
- Sloman, M.S., Policy Driven Management for Distributed Systems. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 2(4): 333-360, Plenum Press Publishing, 1994.Applicant
- Moffett, J.D. and Sloman, M.S., Policy Hierarchies for Distributed Systems Management. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Special Issue on Network Management, 11(9):1404-1414, Dec. 1993.Applicant
- Gile, S., Reporting Application Usage in a LAN Environment, New Centerings in Computing Services, pp. 147-159 (1990).Applicant
- Moffett, J.D. and Sloman M.S., (1991b), The Representation of Policies as System Objects, Proceedings of the Conference on Organisational Computer Systems (COCS'91) Atlanta, GA, Nov. 5-8, 1991, in SIGOIS Bulletin vol. 12, Nos. 2 & 3, pp 171-184.Applicant
- Barkley, “Role Based Access Control (RBAC),” Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing National Institute of Standards and Technology, pp. 1-27, Mar. 1998.Applicant
- Cugini and Ferraiolo, “Role Based Access Control Slide Set-May 1995,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, pp. 1-25, May 1995.Applicant
- Ferraiolo and Barkley, “Specifying and Managing Role-Based Access Control Within a Corporate Intranet,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, pp. 1-6, 1997.Applicant
- Ferraiolo and Kuhn, “Role-Based Access Control,” Reprinted from Proceedings of 15th National Computer Security Conference, pp. 1-11, 1992.Applicant
- Orfali, Harkey, Edwards, “Client/Server Transaction Processing,” Essential Client/Server Survival Guide, pp. 241-288, 1994.Applicant
- Limprecht, “Microsoft Transaction Server,” Compcon '97. Proceedings, IEEE, pp. 14-18, 1997.Applicant
- Chappell, “The Microsoft Transaction Server (MTS)-Transactions Meet Components,” http://www.microsoft.com/Com/wpaper/mtscomp.asp, Feb. 1998.Applicant
- Orfali et al., “CORBA Services: System Management and Security,” The Essential Distributed Objects Survival Guide, pp. 183-202, 1996.Applicant
- “The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification,” Revision 2.0, pp. 2-1 through 2-17, Jul. 1995.Applicant
- U.S. application No. 08/959,139, Helland et al., filed Oct. 28, 1997.Applicant
- U.S. application No. 08/959,149, Limprecht et al., filed Oct. 28, 1997.Applicant
- “The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification,” Revision 2.0, pp. 4-12 through 4-16, Jul. 1995.Applicant
- Landwehr, “Protection (Security) Models and Policy,” The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook, (Tucker, Ed.), CRC Press, pp. 1914-1928, 1997.Applicant
- Bowen, “Intel's Middleware Move,” InfoWorld, vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 1-2, Mar. 2, 1998.Applicant
- Bochenski, IBM's System View, 1st Edition, Computer Technology Research Corporation, pp. 1-143, 1991.Applicant
- Schiemann et al., “A New Approach for Load Balancing in High-Performance Decision Support Systems,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 345-355, Apr. 1, 1997.Applicant