U.S. patent application number 11/862987 was filed with the patent office on 2008-08-21 for apparatus and method for generating a software dependency map.
This patent application is currently assigned to Sun Microsystems, Inc.. Invention is credited to Michael J. Wookey.
Application Number | 20080201705 11/862987 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 39707739 |
Filed Date | 2008-08-21 |
United States Patent
Application |
20080201705 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Wookey; Michael J. |
August 21, 2008 |
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A SOFTWARE DEPENDENCY MAP
Abstract
A system and method for generating a software installation map,
also referred to as a dependency map, that involves receiving a
first software package comprising at least a first software file
and a second software file. The first software file is dependent on
the second software file. The method further involves generating a
first software element representing the first software file and
generating a second software element representing the second
software file. The method involves generating a first dependency
pointer representing the dependency between the first software file
and the second software file. Finally, the software elements are
provided in an installation map, and the process repeats for each
software file in the first software package.
Inventors: |
Wookey; Michael J.; (Los
Gatos, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. c/o DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
370 SEVENTEENTH ST., SUITE 4700
DENVER
CO
80202
US
|
Assignee: |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Santa Clara
CA
|
Family ID: |
39707739 |
Appl. No.: |
11/862987 |
Filed: |
September 27, 2007 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60890171 |
Feb 15, 2007 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
717/175 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 8/658 20180201 |
Class at
Publication: |
717/175 |
International
Class: |
G06F 9/445 20060101
G06F009/445 |
Claims
1. A method for altering an existing configuration of a first
software functionality on a client device to install a second
software functionality comprising: receiving a request to install a
second software functionality on a client device; receiving a
software manifest describing a plurality of software files residing
on the client device; accessing a software installation map
comprising a plurality of software elements representing at least
the plurality of software files described in the software manifest,
a plurality of software files for installing the second software
functionality, and a plurality of dependency pointers representing
dependencies between the software files; analyzing the software
installation map to determine a first software installation route
for installing the second software functionality, the software
installation route comprising: the plurality of software files for
installing the second software functionality, the plurality of
software files including at least one existing software file
associated with the first software functionality to be altered for
installation of the second software functionality, and an
installation order for installing the plurality of software files;
and providing the first software installation route to the client
device to alter the first software functionality and install the
second software functionality.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a first
installation criteria for installing the second software
functionality.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein the first installation criteria is
at least one of the following: a) an installation with an optimized
number of required software files; b) an installation with an
optimized amount of disk space required; c) an installation with a
least number of errors reported against it; and d) and installation
with a latest security update.
4. The method of claim 3 where the operation of determining the
first software installation route is a function of the first
installation criteria and wherein the installation route and
software installation map include features indicative of at least
one of: a number of software files to related to the installation
route, an amount of disk space required to install the files
identified in the installation route, a number of errors associated
with the installation route, and a security status of the
installation route.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the at least one software file
associated with the first software functionality to be altered
involves one of: removing the at least one software file, replacing
the at least one software file with a newer version of the at least
one software file, and replacing the at least one software file
with an older version of the at least one software file.
6. The method of claim 2 further comprising: receiving a rejection
of the first software installation route due to a requirement to
not alter the at least one existing software file.
7. The method of claim 6 further comprising: providing a second
optimized software installation route describing at least one
existing software file associated with the first software
functionality to be altered to optimize the performance of the
second software functionality.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the operation of determining a
first software installation route comprises the operations of:
determining a start point within a software installation map,
wherein the start point is a collection of the software files
described in the software manifest; determining an end point within
the software installation map, wherein the end point is a
collection of some or all of the software files described in the
software manifest and the files needed for installing the second
software functionality; and determining a collection of software
files for installing the second software functionality wherein the
collection of software files for installing the second software
functionality is a function of a difference in files between the
end point and the start point.
9. The method of claim 1 wherein the software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing at least
the plurality of software files described in the software manifest
and the plurality of software files for installing the second
software functionality; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between the software files.
10. The method of claim 1 wherein the first software installation
route is associated with a confidence factor representing an
estimate that the first software installation route provides for a
successful installation.
11. A method for receiving instructions for installing a second
software functionality on a client device with an existing first
software functionality comprising: providing an installation
request for a second software functionality wherein a first
software functionality currently resides on a client device;
providing a software manifest describing a plurality of software
files residing on the client device and associated with at least
the first software functionality; and receiving a software
installation route comprising: a plurality of software files for
installing the second software functionality, the plurality of
software files including at least one software file associated with
the first software functionality to be altered for installation of
the second software functionality; and an installation order for
installing the plurality of software files.
12. The method of claim 11 further comprising: providing a first
installation criteria for installing the second software
functionality, the first installation criteria for generating the
software installation route.
13. The method of claim 12 wherein the first installation criteria
is one of the following: a) an installation with an optimized
number of required software files; b) an installation with an
optimized amount of disk space required; c) an installation with a
least number of errors reported against it; and d) and installation
with a latest security update.
14. The method of claim 13 wherein the at least one software file
associated with the first software functionality to be altered
involves one of: removing the at least one software file, replacing
the at least one software file with a newer version of the at least
one software file, and replacing the at least one software file
with an older version of the at least one software file.
15. The method of claim 13 wherein the installation route is a
function of the first installation criteria and wherein the
installation route and software installation map include features
indicative of at least one of: a number of software files to
related to the installation route, an amount of disk space required
to install the files identified in the installation route, a number
of errors associated with the installation route, and a security
status of the installation route.
16. The method of claim 15 further comprising: providing for
determining whether alteration of the at least one software file is
acceptable; providing a refusal to alter the at least one software
file; and receiving a second installation route for installing the
second software functionality describing at least one second
software file associated with the first software functionality to
be altered for installation of the second software
functionality.
17. The method of claim 16 further comprising: altering the at
least one second software file at the client device.
18. The method of claim 17 further comprising: installing the
plurality of software files as described in the second software
installation route.
19. The method of claim 1 wherein the operation of receiving a
software installation route is from a software installation map
comprising a plurality of software elements representing at least
the plurality of software files described in the software manifest
and the plurality of software files for installing the second
software functionality; and each software element including at
least one dependency pointers representing a dependency with at
least one other software files.
20. A software management system for managing a plurality of
software installation maps, comprising: a first module configured
for hosting a first software installation map, the first software
installation map comprising: a first plurality of software elements
representing a first plurality of software files; a first plurality
of dependency pointers representing a plurality of dependencies
between the first plurality of software files; a second module
configured for hosting a second software installation map, the
second software installation map configured to communicate with the
first software installation map to collectively define a virtual
software installation map, the second software installation map
comprising: a second plurality of software elements representing a
second plurality of software files; and a second plurality of
dependency pointers representing a plurality of dependencies
between the second plurality of software files.
21. The system of claim 20 wherein the first software installation
map further comprises: at least a first map reference pointer
configured to reference a third map reference pointer from a third
software installation map.
22. The system of claim 20 wherein the first software installation
map further comprises a first map reference pointer to a second map
reference pointer of the second software installation map.
23. The system of claim 22 wherein the first map reference pointer
comprises: a confidence factor being an estimate that the first map
reference pointer is a valid reference to the third software
installation map.
24. The system of claim 23 wherein the first map reference pointer
further comprises: a class definition of a class of software of the
first map reference pointer wherein the second map reference
pointer from the second additional software installation map has a
dependency on the class of software of the first map reference
pointer.
25. The system of claim 24 wherein the first map reference pointer
comprises a reference version defining a version of a software
application associated with the first map reference pointer wherein
a version of a reference pointer from the at least additional
software installation map is of the same version.
26. The system of claim 20 wherein the first software installation
map comprises software associated with a first software vendor and
the second software installation map comprises software associated
with a second software vendor.
27. The system of claim 22 wherein the first and second map
reference pointers associate the first and second software
installation maps into the virtual software installation map.
28. The system of claim 27 wherein the virtual software
installation map is configured to receive a software installation
request for software functionality from both the first and second
software installation maps.
29. The system of claim 28 wherein at least a portion of the
virtual software installation map may reside in a memory of a
software agent of a client device.
30. A method for managing a plurality of software installation
maps: receiving a request for installing a first software
functionality on a client device wherein the first software
functionality comprises a first software file referenced in a first
software installation map and a second software file referenced in
a second software installation map; combining the first
installation map and the second installation map into a virtual
software installation map; generating a software installation route
from the virtual software installation map, wherein the software
installation route includes the first software file from the first
installation map and the second file from the second software
installation map; and providing the software installation route to
the client device.
31. The method of claim 30 wherein the operation of combining the
first installation map and the second software installation map
further comprises: associating a first map reference pointer of the
first software installation map with a second map reference pointer
of the second software installation map to establish the virtual
installation map.
32. The method of claim 30 wherein each of the first and second
installation maps comprise: a plurality of software elements
representing a plurality of software files; and a plurality of
dependency pointers representing a plurality of dependencies
between the plurality of software files.
33. The method of claim 31 wherein the first map reference pointer
comprises: a confidence factor that the first map reference pointer
is a valid reference point to the second map reference pointer.
34. The method of claim 33 wherein the first map reference pointer
further comprises: a class definition of a class of software of the
first map reference pointer.
35. The method of claim 34 wherein the class definition expresses a
dependency of a class of the second reference pointer.
36. The method of claim 35 wherein the first map reference pointer
further comprises: a reference version defining a version of a
software application associated with the first map reference
pointer.
37. The method of claim 30 wherein the first software installation
map comprises software associated with a first software vendor and
the second software installation map comprises software associated
with a second software vendor.
38. The method of claim 30 wherein at least a portion of the
virtual software installation map may reside in a memory of a
software agent of the client device.
39. The method of claim 30 wherein the software installation route
comprises: a confidence factor that the software installation route
provides for a valid installation of the first software
functionality.
40. A system for substantially duplicating a software configuration
from a first computing system to at least a second computing system
comprising: a software installation map configured to receive a
source software manifest reflecting a source software configuration
describing a plurality of source software files residing on a
source client; the software installation map further configured to
generate a first software installation route describing a plurality
of software files and associated dependencies, the first software
installation route being a function of the source software
manifest; and the software installation map further configured to
provide the first software installation route to a target client,
the first route providing an identification of software files to
substantially duplicate the source software configuration of the
source client on the target client.
41. The system of claim 40 wherein the source client has a source
software load, the source client further having a source software
agent running on the source client, the source software agent
configured to track changes to the source software manifest.
42. The system of claim 40 wherein the target client has a target
software load, the target client further having a target software
agent running on the target client, the target software agent
configured to receive the first software installation route to
substantially duplicate the source software manifest.
43. The system of claim 40 wherein the system is further configured
to provide a bare metal provision to the target client.
44. The system of claim 41 wherein the software agent of the source
client is configured to perform the operations comprising:
comparing the software files described in the first software
installation route against the source software manifest; and
communicating with the software installation map to obtain software
files identified on the first software installation route but not
present in the source software manifest.
45. The system of claim 44 where the software agent of the source
client is configured to perform the operations of: identifying any
removal software files that exist on the source client but are not
described in the first software installation route; removing the
removal software files from the source client; identifying any
additional software files that are described in the first software
installation route but do not exist on the source client; and
installing the additional software files on the source client.
46. The system of claim 42 wherein the target software agent of the
target client is configured to perform the operations comprising:
receiving the first software installation route; analyzing the
target software load and identifying any software files that exist
in the target software load but are not described in the first
software installation route; creating a first de-installation list
of at least one software file that is not part of the first
software installation route; analyzing a file manifest of each
software file in the first de-installation list and performing a
file-level dependency check on each software file in the first
de-installation list to identify additional files that are created
at runtime but are not under the control of the target software
manifest; creating a second de-installation list describing any
additional files created at run-time but are not under the control
of the target software manifest; and deleting the software files
described in the first and second de-installation lists.
47. The system of claim 40 wherein the software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between the plurality of software
files.
48. The system of claim 43 wherein the operation of providing a
bare metal provision to the target client further comprises
providing a target software agent for installation on the target
client.
49. A method for substantially duplicating a software configuration
from a first computing system to at least a second computing system
comprising: receiving a request for duplicating a software
configuration from a source client to a target client, the source
client having a source software manifest listing the source
software files residing on the source client and the target client
having a target software load listing the target software files
residing on the target client; receiving the source software
manifest; generating a first software installation route based on
the source software manifest, the first software installation route
generated from a software installation map; and providing the first
software installation route to the target client.
50. The method of claim 49 wherein the source client further
performs the operations comprising: comparing the plurality of
software files described in the first software installation route
against the source software load; and altering the source software
load to substantially equal the plurality of files described in the
first software installation route.
51. The method of claim 50 wherein the software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between each of the plurality of software
files.
52. The method of claim 50 wherein the target client further
performs the operations comprising: receiving the first software
installation route; analyzing the target software load and
identifying any software files that exist in the target software
load but are not described in the first software installation
route; creating a first de-installation list of the software files
that are not part of the first software installation route;
analyzing a file manifest of each software file in the first
de-installation list and performing a file-level dependency check
on each software file in the first de-installation list to identify
additional files that are created at runtime but are not under the
control of the target software manifest; creating a second
de-installation list describing any additional files created at
run-time but are not under the control of the target software
manifest; and deleting the software files described in the first
and second de-installation lists.
53. The method of claim 52 further comprising installing a software
agent on the target client.
54. The method of claim 50 further comprising installing a software
agent on the source client.
55. The method of claim 49 further comprising: providing a bare
metal provision to the target client.
56. The method of claim 55 wherein the operation of providing a
bare metal provision to the target client comprises an installation
for a minimal operating system for installation on the target
client wherein the minimal operating system is a same operating
system existing on the source client.
57. The system of claim 56 wherein the operation of providing a
bare metal provision to the target client further comprises
providing a target software agent for installation on the target
client.
58. A system for managing software installation errors comprising:
a service provider module for hosting a software installation map,
the software installation map comprising: a plurality of software
elements representing a plurality of software files; a plurality of
dependency pointers representing a plurality of dependencies
between the plurality of software files; at least one software
installation route describing a subset of the plurality of software
files combinable to represent at least one software functionality;
the service provider configured to provide the installation route
to a client device to install the subset of the plurality of
software files; and an error analysis module in communication with
the service provider module, the error analysis module configured
to analyze an error message received from the client device in
association with installation of the subset the plurality of
software files.
59. The system of claim 58 wherein the error analysis module is
configured to perform the operations of: analyzing the error
message to determine a source of the error message; associating the
received error and a timestamp of when the error occurred with at
least one of the plurality of software elements responsible for the
error; and associating the received error with the software
installation route used for installing the software
functionality.
60. The system of claim 59 wherein the error analysis module is
configured to perform the operations of: analyzing the error
message to identify files installed on the client device prior to
the installation of the subset of the plurality of software
files.
61. The system of claim 59 wherein the at least one software
installation route has a confidence factor representing an estimate
of whether the at least one software installation route will
provide for a successful installation of the software
functionality.
62. The system of claim 61 wherein the operation of associating the
received error with the software installation route used for
installing the software functionality further comprises:
associating information about the received error with the software
installation route; and reducing the confidence factor associated
with the software installation route.
63. The system of claim 62 where the operation of reducing the
confidence factor associated with the software installation route
is determined by dividing a number of installations based on the
software installation route by a number of successful installations
based on the software installation route.
64. A method for managing software installation errors comprising:
providing a software installation route to a client device for
installing a software functionality; receiving an error string
associated with the software installation route; parsing the error
string to determine a cause of the error; associating the received
error with a software element associated with the error; and
associating the received error with the software installation route
used for installing the software functionality.
65. The method of claim 64 further comprising: parsing the error
string to further determine a time of the error; and associating
the received error and the time of the error with the software
element associated with the error.
66. The method of claim 65 wherein the operation of parsing the
error string further comprises: identifying references to any files
that may have already been installed on the client device prior to
the installation; and identifying references to any known
installation problems.
67. The method of claim 66 wherein the software installation route
has a confidence factor representing an estimate that the at least
one software installation route will provide for a successful
installation.
68. The method of claim 67 wherein the operation of associating the
received error with the software installation route used for
installing the software functionality further comprises: attaching
information about the received error to the software installation
route; and reducing the confidence factor associated with the
software installation route as a function of the received
error.
69. The method of claim 68 where the operation of reducing the
confidence factor associated with the software installation route
involves dividing a number of uses of the software installation
route by a number of successful installations provided by the
software installation route.
70. The method of claim 68 wherein the operation of associating
information about the received error to the software installation
route further comprises: associating the software module
responsible for the error with the software installation route;
associating the error string with the software installation route;
and associating a cause of the error with the software installation
route.
71. The method of claim 65 wherein the error string is transmitted
by a software agent installed on the client device.
72. The method of claim 64 further comprising: providing details of
the parsed error string to the client device.
73. The method of claim 64, further comprising: revising the
software installation route to avoid the cause of the error.
74. The method of claim 73, further comprising: providing a revised
software installation route to the client device.
75. A method for transmitting software installation errors,
comprising: upon a request for installing a software functionality,
receiving a software installation route from a service provider
module, the software installation route providing at least one
software file for installing the software functionality; installing
the at least one software file based on the software installation
route on a client device; receiving an installation error during
installation of the software installation route; and transmitting
the installation error to the service provider module.
76. The method of claim 75 further comprising providing a software
agent on the client device to perform the operations of claim
75.
77. The method of claim 75, further comprising: receiving a revised
software installation route.
78. A method for returning a software configuration on a computing
device to a previous state comprising: receiving a request for
returning a client device software configuration to a previous
state; comparing a previous state software manifest comprising a
list of a plurality of software files residing on the client device
during the previous state with a software installation map to
identify software elements within the map associated with the list
of the plurality of software files residing on the client device
during the previous state; generating a previous state installation
route describing at least a portion of the software elements within
the map and associated software files for returning the client
device to the previous state; and providing the previous state
installation route to the computing device.
79. The method of claim 78 further comprising: comparing the
previous state software manifest to a current client software
manifest; receiving a indication of at least one difference in
software files between the current client software manifest and the
previous state software manifest; and using the difference in
software files, generating a previous state installation route
describing software files to install or de-install from the client
device to return the computing device to the previous state.
80. The method of claim 79 wherein the previous software manifest
further comprises: a list of root software files residing on the
client device, the root software files not having a dependency on
any other software files.
81. The method of claim 78 wherein the operation of comparing the
previous software manifest with a software installation map further
comprises: matching each software file in the software manifest
against a software element representing each software file from the
software installation map, each software file being matched based
on a version of the software file.
82. The method of claim 78 wherein a software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between each of the plurality of software
files.
83. The method of claim 78 further comprising receiving the
previous state software manifest from the computing device, the
computing device storing a plurality of previous software
manifests, each software manifest represented by a date that the
manifest was created.
84. The method of claim 81 wherein the previous state software
manifest provides an order in which the software files described in
the previous state manifest were installed on the computing
device.
85. The method of claim 78 wherein the previous state installation
route describes an installation route for installing software files
to the computing device and removing existing software files from
the computing device.
86. The method of claim 85, wherein the previous state installation
route further includes an installation ordering for installing and
removing the software files, wherein the installation ordering
lists the order in which each software file should be installed or
un-installed from the client device.
87. The method of claim 78, further comprising: receiving an
indication of success from the computing device, the indication of
success representing a successful installation of the previous
state installation route, returning the computing device to the
previous state.
88. The method of claim 78, further comprising: receiving an
indication of failure from the computing device, the indication of
failure representing a failed installation of the previous state
installation route, the indication of failure further comprising: a
listing of software files and their versions installed to the
computing device before a failure occurred; a listing of software
files and their versions removed from the computing device before
the failure occurred; a reason for the failure of the previous
state installation route; and a listing of one of more software
files responsible for the failure.
89. A method for returning a software configuration of a computing
device to a previous state comprising; requesting a rollback of a
computing device software configuration to a configuration as
described in a previous software manifest; providing the previous
software manifest to a software installation map, the previous
software manifest describing a listing of each software file and
associated version residing on the computing device at the time of
the previous software manifest; comparing the previous software
manifest with a current software manifest of the computing device
to generate a list of differences between the previous software
manifest and the current software manifest; providing the list of
differences to the software installation map; receiving a previous
state installation route describing software files and an
associated version for returning the computing device to the
previous software configuration at the time of the previous state;
and installing the software files on the computing device.
90. The method of claim 89 further comprising: generating the
current software manifest describing a current listing of each
software file and associated version residing on the computing
device.
91. The method of claim 89 wherein the previous software manifest
further comprises: a list of root software modules residing on the
client device, root software modules not having a dependency on any
other software modules.
92. The method of claim 89 further comprising receiving a software
agent at the computing device, the software agent providing
communication with the software installation map.
93. The method of claim 89 wherein the software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between each of the plurality of software
files.
94. The method of claim 89, wherein the previous state installation
route further includes an order for installing software files onto
the computing device and removing existing software files from the
client device.
95. The method of claim 89, further comprising: transmitting an
indication of success from the client device, the indication of
success representing a successful installation of the previous
state installation route returning the computing device to the
configuration described in the previous software manifest.
96. The method of claim 89, further comprising: transmitting an
indication of failure from the client device, the indication of
failure representing a failed installation of the previous
installation routed intended to return the computing device to the
configuration described in the previous software manifest.
97. The method of claim 89, further comprising: wherein the
indication of failure comprises: a listing of software files and
their versions installed to the computing device before a failure
occurred; a listing of software files and their versions removed
from the computing device before the failure occurred; a reason for
the failure of the previous state installation route; and a listing
of one of more software files responsible for the failure.
98. A method for installing software on a computing device
comprising: receiving a first software installation request to
install a first software functionality; accessing a software
installation map comprising: a plurality of software elements
representing a plurality of software files, a subset of the
plurality of software elements associated with the first software
functionality; a plurality of dependency pointers identifying
functional dependencies between the plurality of software files;
determining at least one installation route for installing the
first software functionality, the at least one installation route
identifying the subset of the plurality of software elements; and
providing the installation route to a computing device.
99. The method of claim 98 further comprising: transmitting the at
least one installation route to the computing device over a
communication network.
100. The method of claim 98 wherein the operation of receiving a
first software installation request further comprises: receiving a
first installation criteria for installing the first software
functionality.
101. The method of claim 100 wherein the software installation map
includes indicators representative of operating speed of the
software functionality, error rate of the software functionality,
and version of the software functionality and wherein the first
installation criteria is a function of at least one of the
following factors: operating speed of the software functionality,
stability of the software functionality, and version of the
software functionality.
102. The method of claim 98 wherein the software installation map
further comprises: a first installation route including at least a
first subset of the plurality of software elements to install the
first software functionality; and a second installation route
including at least a second subset of the plurality of software
elements, the second subset differing from the first subset by at
least one software element, the second subset of software elements
to install the first software functionality.
103. The method of claim 102 wherein the operation of determining
the at least one install route further comprises: selecting a
preferred installation route from at least the first and second
installation route.
104. The method of claim 103 wherein the operation of selecting a
preferred installation route is a function of a first installation
criteria.
105. The method of claim 102 wherein the first installation route
has a first confidence factor being a function of a historical
record of previous installations based on the first installation
route and the second installation route has a second confidence
factor being a function of a historical record of previous
installations based on the second installation route.
106. The method of claim 105 wherein the first and second
confidence factors represent an estimate of whether the first and
second installation routes, respectively, will result in a
successful installation of the first software functionality on the
computing device.
107. The method of claim 103 wherein the operation of selecting a
preferred installation route is a function of at least the first
and second confidence factors.
108. The method of claim 98 further comprising: providing the
software files to the computing device, the software files
associated with each software element identified in the
installation route.
109. The method of claim 98 wherein each of the plurality of
dependency pointers represents a functional dependency between two
software files, each of the plurality of dependency pointers having
a dependency confidence factor being a function of the dependency
between the two software files and a historical record of
installations involving the dependency between the two software
files.
110. The method of claim 109 wherein the dependency confidence
factor represents an estimate that the dependency between the two
software files is accurate.
111. The method of claim 98 further comprising: obtaining a
location pointer from each of the subset of software elements, the
location pointer identifying a memory location of the software file
associated with the corresponding software element.
112. The method of claim 98 further comprising: obtaining each of
the software files from the memory location of a relational
database.
113. The method of claim 98 wherein each of the plurality of
software files comprises one of the following types of software
files: a) an executable file; b) a shared library file; c) a
configuration file; and d) a script file.
114. The method of claim 98 wherein each of the plurality of
dependency pointers is associated with at least one of the first
and second software elements creating the dependency.
115. A method for installing software on a computing device
comprising: transmitting a software installation request for
installing a first software functionality; receiving at least one
installation route from a software installation map, the
installation route identifying: a plurality of software elements
for installing the first software functionality, each software
element having an associated software file; an installation order
for installing the software files; a confidence factor associated
with the installation route, the confidence factor representing an
estimate of whether the installation route will provide for a
successful installation; receiving the software files for
installing the first software functionality, the plurality of
software files associated with the at least one installation route;
and installing the software files to obtain the first software
functionality.
116. The method of claim 115 further comprising: obtaining a first
installation route including at least a first subset of the
plurality of software elements to install the first software
functionality; a second installation route including at least a
second subset of the plurality of software elements, the second
subset differing from the first subset by at least one software
element, the second subset of software elements to install the
first software functionality; and determining a preferred
installation route between the first and second installation
routes.
117. The method of claim 115 further comprising: transmitting a
success rate to the software installation map, wherein the success
rate is a function of the success of installing the software
functionality.
118. The method of claim 115 further comprising: transmitting at
least one installation criteria for installing the first software
functionality, the at lest one installation criteria represent at
least one of the following types of requirements for installing the
first software functionality: operating speed of the software
functionality, stability of the software functionality, version of
the software functionality, and compatibility of the software
functionality with other software functionality.
119. The method of claim 118 where the operation of receiving the
at least one installation route is a function of the transmission
of the at least one installation criteria.
120. A method for generating dependencies within a software
installation map comprising: creating a first software element in a
software installation map, wherein the first software element
represents a first software file; creating a second software
element in the software installation map, wherein the second
software element represents a second software file; analyzing a
first software package being the source of the first software file
and the second software file to identify a dependency between the
first software file and the second software file; and defining a
first dependency pointer within the software installation map, the
first dependency pointer representing the dependency from the first
software file to the second software file.
121. The method of claim 120 wherein the operation of analyzing
includes extracting a declared dependency between the first
software file and the second software file.
122. The method of claim 120 wherein the operation of analyzing
includes analyzing shared libraries to identify a declared
dependency between the first software file and the second software
file.
123. The method of claim 120 wherein the operation of analyzing
includes analyzing configuration files to identify a declared
dependency between the first software file and the second software
file.
124. The method of claim 120 further comprising analyzing a symbol
file of at least one executable file of the first software package
to identify dependency between the first software file and the
second software file.
125. The method of claim 120 further comprising executing at least
one executable file of the first software package to identify the
dependency between the first software file and the second software
file.
126. The method of claim 120 further comprising: assigning a
confidence factor to the first dependency pointer; and assigning a
timestamp to the first dependency pointer, the timestamp storing a
date the dependency was generated in the software installation
map.
127. The method of claim 126 further comprising: receiving a
success indication based on an installation of a software
functionality on a client device involving the first software file
and the second software file; and adjusting the confidence factor
of the first dependency pointer as a function of the success
indication.
128. The method of claim 121 wherein the declared dependency is
located in one of the following types of software files residing
within the first software package: a) a shared library file; b) a
configuration file; c) an executable file; and d) a symbol
table.
129. The method of claim 120 further comprising: extracting a
plurality of software files from the first software package, the
plurality of files comprising at least the first software file and
the second software file.
130. An apparatus for generating dependencies within a software
installation map configured for performing the operations of:
creating a first software element in a software installation map,
wherein the first software element represents a first software
file; creating a second software element in the software
installation map, wherein the second software element represents a
second software file; analyzing a first software package being the
source of the first software file and the second software file to
identify a dependency between the first software file and the
second software file; and defining a first dependency pointer
within the software installation map, the first dependency pointer
representing the dependency from the first software file to the
second software file.
131. The apparatus of claim 130 wherein the operation of analyzing
includes extracting a declared dependency between the first
software file and the second software file.
132. The apparatus of claim 131 wherein the operation of analyzing
includes analyzing shared libraries to identify a declared
dependency between the first software file and the second software
file.
133. The apparatus of claim 132 wherein the operation of analyzing
includes analyzing configuration files to identify a declared
dependency between the first software file and the second software
file.
134. The apparatus of claim 130 further configured to perform the
operation of analyzing a symbol file of at least one executable
file of the first software package to identify dependency between
the first software file and the second software file.
135. The apparatus of claim 130 further configured to perform the
operation of executing at least one executable file of the first
software package to identify dependency between the first software
file and the second software file.
136. The apparatus of claim 130 further configured to perform the
operations of: assigning a confidence factor to the first
dependency pointer; and assigning a timestamp to the first
dependency pointer, the timestamp storing a date the dependency was
generated in the software installation map.
137. The apparatus of claim 130 further configured to perform the
operations of: receiving a success indication based on an
installation of a software functionality on a client device
involving the first software file and the second software file; and
adjusting the confidence factor of the first dependency pointer as
a function of the success indication.
138. The apparatus of claim 131 wherein the declared dependency is
located in one of the following types of software files residing
within the first software package: a) a shared library file; b) a
configuration file; c) an executable file; and d) a symbol
table.
139. The apparatus of claim 138 further configured to perform the
operation of extracting a plurality of software files from the
first software package, the plurality of files comprising at least
the first software file and the second software file.
140. A method for automating software installations accounting for
an installation policy, the method comprising: defining a client
installation policy for a client device; transmitting a software
installation request for installing a first software functionality;
receiving a software installation route from a software
installation map, the software installation route describes a
plurality of software files for installing the first software
functionality, the software installation route comprising: a
confidence factor representing an indication of previous
installation success based on the software installation route; a
route installation policy; and installing the first software
functionality based on a combination of the client installation
policy and the route installation policy.
141. The method of claim 140 wherein the client installation policy
defines a level of manual interaction suggested for installing
software functionalities on the client device.
142. The method of claim 141 wherein the route installation policy
defines a level of manual interaction suggested for installing the
first software functionality.
143. The method of claim 142 further comprising: overriding the
route installation policy to install the first software
functionality based on the client installation policy.
144. The method of claim 142 further comprising: overriding the
client installation policy to install the first software
functionality based on the route installation policy.
145. The method of claim 142 wherein the route installation policy
is a function of the confidence factor associated with the software
installation route.
146. The method of claim 140 wherein the software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between each of the plurality of software
files.
147. The method of claim 140 wherein the client installation policy
automatically changes over time based on a historical record of
successful installations performed on the client device.
148. The method of claim 147 wherein the client installation policy
changes to suggest less manual interaction if the first software
functionality installs successfully.
149. The method of claim 147 wherein the client installation policy
changes to suggest more manual interaction if the first software
functionality installs unsuccessfully.
150. A method for providing a software installation accounting for
an installation policy comprising: maintaining a software
installation map comprising: a plurality of software elements
representing a plurality of software files; a plurality of
dependency pointers representing dependencies between each of the
plurality of software files; at least one software installation
route for installing a first software functionality, the
installation route including a subset of the plurality of software
elements and having a route installation policy defining a level of
manual interaction suggested for installing the software
functionality; receiving a request for installing the first
software functionality from a client device; and providing the
first software installation route to the client device.
151. The method of claim 150 wherein the first software
installation route comprises: a confidence factor representing an
estimate of whether the first software installation route will
provide for a successful installation.
152. The method of claim 151 wherein the route installation policy
is a function of the confidence factor.
153. The method of claim 152 further comprising: receiving an
indication of success from the installation of the first software
functionality, wherein the indication of success describes whether
the installation resulted in one or more errors.
154. The method of claim 153 further comprising: altering the route
installation policy based on the indication of success.
155. The method of claim 154 wherein the operation of altering the
route installation policy increases a suggested level of manual
interaction if the indication of success returned one or more
installation errors.
156. The method of claim 154 wherein the operation of altering the
route installation policy decreases the suggested level of manual
interaction if the indication of success returned no installation
errors.
157. The method of claim 151 wherein the route installation policy
suggests a decreased level of manual interaction if the confidence
factor of the software installation route is increased.
158. The method of claim 151 wherein the route installation policy
suggests a increased level of manual interaction if the confidence
factor of the software installation route is reduced.
159. The method of claim 151 wherein the route installation policy
is a function of a number of installations performed based on the
first software installation route.
160. A software run-time error detection system comprising: an
error receiving module residing on a server device, the error
receiving module to receive run-time error messages from a software
monitoring agent residing on a client device, the software
monitoring agent configured to detect run-time errors associated
with at least one software functionality installed on the client
device; and a route manager residing on the server device, the
route manager in communication with the error receiving module, the
route manager further configured to modify a confidence factor
associate with at least one software installation route defined in
a software installation map, the software installation route
defining a plurality of software elements associated with the
software functionality installed on the client device.
161. The system of claim 160 wherein the software monitoring agent
further comprises: a first software error detection module
configured to detect run-time errors in the first software
functionality.
162. The system of claim 161 wherein the first software error
detection module further comprises: a first event detector
configured to detect run-time errors events in the first software
functionality; and a first log file watcher configured to monitor
at least one error log associated with the first software
functionality.
163. The system of claim 162 wherein the first event detector is
further configured to accept instructions on which types of
run-time error events to detect.
164. The system of claim 162 wherein the first log file watcher is
further configured to accept instructions on which types of error
entries to monitor in the at least one error log.
165. The system of claim 164 wherein the at least one error log is
one of at least a system error log and an application specific
error log.
166. The system of claim 163 further comprising an event detector
configured to perform at least one of the following: a) simple
network management protocol ("SNMP") sniffing; b) core image dumps;
c) memory image dumps; d) java stack detections; and e) kernel
level system interrupts.
167. The system of claim 160 wherein the software monitoring agent
is configured to accept instructions on which types of run-time
errors are to be flagged and provided to the route manager.
168. The system of claim 160 wherein the route manager is
configured to receive, by way of the error receiving module,
run-time error messages and software manifests from the software
monitoring agent.
169. The system of claim 168 wherein the route manager is further
configured for: determining at least one software installation
route associated with at least one error message; associating the
at least one error message with the at least one software
installation route; and updating a confidence factor of the at
least one software installation route, the confidence factor being
a function of the at least one error message.
170. A method for monitoring software run-time errors on a client
device comprising: receiving a software monitoring agent on the
client device; configuring the software agent to detect at least
one type of run-time error occurring on the client device;
monitoring the client device for an occurrence of the at least one
type of run-time error; and providing at least one error message
and a software manifest to a route manager, the software manifest
listing a plurality of software files residing on the client
device.
171. The method of claim 170 further comprising: receiving a
confirmation from the route manager that at least one software
installation route associated with the at least one error message
has been updated to reflect the occurrence of the run-time error on
the client device.
172. The method of claim 170 wherein the operation of monitoring
the client device further comprises monitoring at least one error
log file residing on the client device.
173. The method of claim 172 wherein the software agent is
configured to conduct at least one of the following a) simple
network management protocol ("SNMP") sniffing; b) core image dumps;
c) memory image dumps; d) java stack detections; and e) kernel
level system interrupts.
174. The method of claim 172 wherein the at least one error log is
one of at least a system error log and an application specific
error log.
175. The method of claim 170 wherein the operation of providing at
least one error message to a route manager is performed by the
software monitoring agent.
176. The method of claim 170 wherein the operation of configuring
the software agent to detect at least one type of run-time error
further comprises: configuring a first software error detection
module to detect run-time errors associated with a first software
functionality residing on the client device.
177. The method of claim 176 wherein the operation of configuring
the software agent to detect at least one type of run-time error
further comprises: configuring the first software error detection
module to detect run-time errors associated with a second software
functionality residing on the client device.
178. The method of claim 176 wherein the operation of configuring
the software agent to detect at least one type of run-time error
further comprises: configuring a second software error detection
module to detect run-time errors associated with a second software
functionality residing on the client device.
179. The method of claim 170 wherein the operation of configuring
the software agent to detect at least one type of run-time error
occurring on the client device is performed by a system
administrator.
180. A method for providing information to assess a contemplated
software installation comprising: receiving a request for assessing
a contemplated installation of a first software functionality on a
client device; receiving a software manifest comprising a plurality
of software files residing on the client device; accessing an
existing software installation map to determine a plurality of
installation files for assessing the installation and to identify a
plurality of dependencies between the plurality of installation
files; generating at least one new software installation route
describing the plurality of installation files and their
dependencies for assessing the installation; comparing the at least
one new software installation route against at least one existing
and substantially similar software installation route residing in
the software installation map to provide a new confidence factor
associated with the at least one new software installation route
based on an existing confidence factor of the at least one existing
software installation routes.
181. The method of claim 180 further comprising: providing the at
least one new software installation route and its associated
confidence factor to the client device, the confidence factor of
the at least one new software installation route permitting the
client device to determine the likelihood of whether the new
software installation route will provide for a stable installation
of the first software functionality.
182. The method of claim 180 further comprising: generating a
virtual software installation map comprising a plurality of
software elements representing the plurality of files described in
the software manifest, and dependencies between the plurality of
files.
183. The method of claim 182 wherein the operation of generating a
virtual software installation map further comprises: analyzing the
existing software installation map; based on the analysis,
generating an operating system dependency route describing
substantially all software elements and their dependencies to
provision an operating system as configured on the client device;
and based on the analysis, generating at least one application
dependency route describing substantially all the software elements
and their dependencies to provision at least one existing
application on the client device.
184. The method of claim 183 further comprising simulating an
installation of the first software functionality by provisioning
the new software installation route on the virtual software
installation map.
185. The method of claim 184 further comprising: providing a
simulated confidence factor of the virtually provisioned new
software installation route by assessing a confidence factor of
each dependency relationship in the new installation route, the
operating system dependency route, and the at least one application
dependency route.
186. The method of claim 185 wherein the simulated confidence
factor represents an estimate of whether the new preferred software
installation route provides for a successful installation of the
first software functionality.
187. The method of claim 185 further comprising identifying any
dangling references in the virtually provisioned new software
installation route.
188. The method of claim 180 wherein the existing software
installation map comprises: a plurality of software elements
representing at least the plurality of software files set forth in
the software manifest; and a plurality of dependency pointers
representing dependencies between the plurality of software
elements.
189. A method for validating and repairing a software installation
comprising: installing a first software file on a client device
wherein the first software file is a subset of an installation of a
first software functionality, the first software file further
having at least one dependency on at least one dependent software
file presumed to reside on the client device; determining whether
the at least one dependent software file resides on the client
device; and installing the at least one dependent software
file.
190. The method of claim 189 wherein if the at least one dependent
software file does not reside on the client device perform the
operations of: pausing the installation of the first software
functionality; removing the first software file from the client
device; requesting the at least one dependent software file from a
software installation map; receiving the at least one dependent
software file from the software installation map; installing the
first software file and the at least one dependent software file on
the client device; and resuming the installation of the first
software functionality.
191. The method of claim 190 wherein the software installation map
comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files including a first software element
representing the first software file; and a plurality of dependency
pointers representing a dependency between the plurality of
software files.
192. The method of claim 191 further comprising: applying a time
stamp to the first software element signifying that the at least
one dependent software file resides on the client device.
193. The method of claim 191 wherein each software element includes
a uniform resource location ("URL") reference to a memory location
of the associated software file.
194. The method of claim 193 further comprising: by way of a
uniform resource locator for the at least one dependent software
file, obtaining the at least one dependent software file.
195. The method of claim 189 wherein the operation of installing a
first software file on a client is performed by a software agent
residing on the client device.
196. The method of claim 195 further comprising providing for
configuration of the software agent by a system administrator.
197. The method of claim 189 wherein the operation of determining
whether the at least one dependent software file resides on the
client device is performed by a validation thread of a software
agent residing on the client device.
198. An apparatus for validating and repairing a software
installation comprising: a software agent residing on a client
device, the software agent in communication with a software
installation map residing on a server device; the software agent
configured to: install a first software file on the client device
received form the software installation map, the first software
file is a subset of an installation of a first software
functionality, the first software file further having at least one
dependency on at least one dependent software file presumed to
reside on the client device; determine whether the at least one
dependent software file resides on the client device; request the
at least one dependent software file from the software installation
map; and install the at least one dependent software file.
199. The apparatus of claim 198 wherein, upon determination that
the at least one software file does not reside on the client
device, the software agent is further configured to: pause the
installation of the first software functionality; remove the first
software file from the client device; request the at least one
dependent software file from the software installation map; receive
the at least one dependent software file from the software
installation map; install the first software file and the at least
one dependent software file on the client device; and resume the
installation of the first software functionality.
200. The apparatus of claim 199 wherein the software agent further
comprises: a validation thread configured to determine whether the
at least one dependent software file resides on the client
device.
201. The apparatus of claim 200 wherein the software agent is
configurable to alter the determination of whether the at least one
dependent software file resides on the client device.
202. The apparatus of claim 201 wherein the software agent is
configured to determine whether the at least one dependent software
file resides on the client device by obtaining file level access
permissions of the at least one dependent software file residing on
the client device.
203. The apparatus of claim 202 wherein the software agent is
configured to determine whether the at least one dependent software
file resides on the client device by accessing at least one high
level symbol table associated with the dependent software file.
204. The apparatus of claim 198 wherein the software installation
map comprises: a plurality of software elements representing a
plurality of software files including a first software element
representing the first software file; and a plurality of dependency
pointers representing a dependency between the plurality of
software files.
205. The apparatus of claim 198 wherein the software agent is
configured to provide an indication of the presence of the at least
one dependent file to the software installation map so that the
software installation map may apply a time stamp to the first
software element signifying that the at least one dependent
software file resides on the client device.
206. A method for maintaining a software repository of software
files used for installing at least a first software functionality
comprising: maintaining a first software application within a
primary storage facility of the software repository, the first
software application comprising a plurality of software files
wherein each software file is represented by a plurality of
software elements maintained in a software installation map;
updating a usage factor of a first software element associated with
a first software file from the plurality of software files, the
usage factor being a function of a number of times the first
software file is installed during a first time period; and moving
the first software file from the primary storage facility of the
software repository to a secondary storage facility as a function
of the usage factor.
207. The method of claim 206 further comprising: comparing the
usage factor against a threshold value; and moving the first
software file from the primary storage facility of the software
repository to a secondary storage facility if the usage factor
meets the threshold value.
208. The method of claim 207 wherein each software element
maintained in the software installation map has at least one
associated dependency and a confidence factor associated with the
dependency; the method further comprising: updating an aging value
of the first software element as a function of the confidence
factor associated with the dependency.
209. The method of claim 208 further comprising: comparing the
aging value to a second threshold; and moving the first software
file from the primary storage facility of the software repository
to a secondary storage facility if the aging value meets the second
threshold value.
210. The method of claim 208 further comprising: updating the aging
value of the first software element as function of the confidence
factor associated with the dependency and the usage factor of the
first software element; and moving the first software file from the
primary storage facility of the software repository to a secondary
storage facility as a function of the aging factor.
211. The method of claim 207 wherein each software element
maintained in the software installation map has at least one
associated dependency and a plurality of confidence factors
associated with the dependency; the method further comprising:
updating an aging value of the first software element as a function
of the confidence factors associated with the dependency.
212. The method of claim 211 further comprising: updating an aging
value of the first software element as a function of an average of
the confidence factors associated with the dependency.
213. The method of claim 212 further comprising: comparing the
aging value to a second threshold; and moving the first software
file from the primary storage facility of the software repository
to a secondary storage facility if the aging value meets the second
threshold value.
214. The method of claim 206 further comprising: deleting the first
software file from at least one of the primary storage facility and
secondary storage facility as a function of the usage factor.
215. The method of claim 208 further comprising: deleting the first
software file from at least one of the primary storage facility and
the secondary storage facility as a function of the aging
factor.
216. The method of claim 214 further comprising removing the
software element from the installation map.
217. A method for maintaining a software repository of software
files used for installing at least a first software functionality
comprising: maintaining a first software application within a
primary storage facility of the software repository, the first
software application comprising a plurality of software files
wherein each software file is represented by a plurality of
software elements maintained in a software installation map,
wherein each software element maintained in the software
installation map has at least one associated dependency and a
confidence factor associated with the dependency; updating an aging
factor of a first software element associated with a first software
file from the plurality of software files, the aging factor being a
function of at least one of a number of times the first software
file is installed during a first time period and the confidence
factor; and moving the first software file from the primary storage
facility of the software repository to a secondary storage facility
as a function of the aging factor.
218. The method of claim 217 further comprising: comparing the
aging factor against a threshold value; and moving the first
software file from the primary storage facility of the software
repository to a secondary storage facility if the aging factor
meets the threshold value.
219. The method of claim 217 further comprising: deleting the first
software file from the secondary storage facility when the first
software element representing the first software file is not
requested from the software installation map during a predetermined
period of time after updating the aging factor.
220. The method of claim 217 further comprising: deleting the first
software element from the software installation map as a function
of the aging factor.
221. The method of claim 220 further comprising: maintaining a log
of deleted software files.
222. The method of claim 218 wherein the primary storage facility
is a relational database.
223. The method of claim 217 wherein the secondary storage facility
is a tape drive system.
224. A system for maintaining a software warehouse of software
files used for installing at least a first software functionality
used for installing at least a first software functionality
comprising: a first storage facility for hosting a plurality of
software files wherein each of the plurality of software files are
represented by a software element maintained on a software
installation map, wherein each software element maintained in the
software installation map has at least one associated dependency
and a confidence factor associated with the dependency; an aging
module configured to monitor the plurality of software files and
age a software file as function of at least one of a number of
times the first software file is installed during a first time
period and the confidence factor; and a second storage facility in
communication with the first storage facility, the second storage
facility for receiving from the first storage facility and hosting
a plurality of software files when the age of the software file
meets a threshold.
225. The system of claim 224 wherein the first storage facility
includes a high speed relational database and the second storage
facility includes a tape drive system.
226. A method for generating a software installation map
comprising: receiving a first software package comprising at least
a first software file and a second software file, the first
software file being dependent on the second software file;
generating a first software element representing the first software
file; generating a second software element representing the second
software file; and generating a first dependency pointer
representing the dependency between the first software file and the
second software file.
227. The method of claim 226 further comprising: extracting the
first and the second software files from the first software
package.
228. The method of claim 227 wherein the operation of extracting
the first and second software files comprises: uncompressing at
least the first and second file of the first software package;
accessing a software installation manifest from the first software
package; and verifying that at least the first and second software
files represented in the software installation manifest have been
uncompressed.
229. The method of claim 228 wherein the operation of uncompressing
at least the first and second files from the first software package
further comprises executing a compression utility capable of
uncompressing the files from the first software package.
230. The method of claim 228 wherein the software installation
manifest includes a list of the first software file, the second
software file, and other software files of the first software
package.
231. The method of claim 226 further comprising: creating a first
location pointer associated with first software element, wherein
the first location pointer identifies a physical location of the
first software file.
232. The method of claim 231 wherein the physical location of the
first software file is a portion of memory in a relational
database.
233. The method of claim 226 wherein the dependency between the
first software file and the second software file is previously
declared in the first software package.
234. The method of claim 233 further comprising: generating a first
confidence factor representing a validity of the dependency of the
first software file on the second software file.
235. The method of claim 234 wherein the first confidence factor is
a function of the defined dependency from the first software
package and a historical record of installations involving the
dependency of the first software file on the second software
file.
236. The method of claim 226 further comprising: defining a first
installation route within the software installation map, wherein
the first installation route includes at least the first and second
software elements and identifies the software elements to install a
first functional aspect of the first software package on a
computing system.
237. The method of claim 236 wherein the operation of defining at
least one installation route is a function of one or more
installation criteria.
238. The method of claim 237 wherein the installation criteria
represent at least one requirement for installing a software
application.
239. The method of claim 236 further comprising: defining a second
installation route within the software installation map, wherein
the second installation route includes at least the first and
second software elements and identifies the software elements to
install a second functional aspect of the first software package on
a computing system; and selecting a preferred installation route
from at least the first and second installation route achieving at
least one of the first and second functional aspects of the first
software package.
240. The method of claim 239 wherein each of the plurality of
installation routes is based on differing installation
criteria.
241. The method of claim 226 wherein the first software file
comprises one of the following types of software files: a) an
executable file; b) a shared library file; c) a configuration file;
and d) a script file.
242. The method of claim 226 wherein the first dependency pointer
is associated with at least one of the first software element and
the second software element.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] The present application is a non-provisional application
claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. .sctn. 119(e) to co-pending
provisional patent application 60/890,171 titled "System and Method
for Deploying and Managing Software", filed on Feb. 15, 2007, which
is hereby incorporated by reference herein.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] This invention relates, in general, to software deployment,
and more particularly to the installation of enterprise-wide
software applications based on customer-preferred installation
parameters.
BACKGROUND
[0003] In order to run a software application on a computer, it
usually requires the execution of an installation program to
install the software onto the computer's hard drive or other
storage medium. Depending on the size and complexity of the
software, the installation program can be quite complicated. An
installation program typically manages the installation of multiple
files to one or more directories within a file system of the
storage medium. Often, existing configuration files are edited in
order for the computer's operating system to become aware of the
new software. Further, some of the edited configuration files are
accessed by other applications. Such changes to a computer's
environment may cause problems, such that a newly installed
application may not work correctly, or possibly worse, a previously
installed application may begin to malfunction. Such problems
become a much larger concern when an application is installed on
numerous computers across an entire company, sometimes referred to
as an enterprise computing environment.
[0004] Due to such problems, the deployment and installation of
software applications in an enterprise computing environment is a
major challenge for the software industry. A significant percentage
of all software installations fail in some manner. A software
installation failure can be defined as some type of error that
exists after the installation of the software. Errors can exist in
both the newly installed application as well as in some previously
installed application. Such errors include installation time
errors, run time errors, performance errors and compatibility
errors. An installation time error occurs during the installation
of the software itself. Installation errors may result from an
incorrectly linked software component, which would have been
defined by an actual human, poorly written computer code that has
not considered the current configuration of the client system or
number of other scenarios. Such an error may prevent the software
application from being installed successfully. In such examples,
only a portion of the required files are installed, resulting in a
partial installation which is incapable of running correctly.
Efforts are then required to back out the partial installation to
return the computer back to its previous state.
[0005] The next type of installation failure is known as a run time
error. A run time error is an error that occurs during execution of
the software, but often occurs while initially launching the
application. One type of run time error may result in a failure to
launch the software, with no warning or error messages stating the
problem. In result, nothing happens when the software is attempted
to execute. Often times one or more cryptic error or warning
messages are displayed as to why the application has failed to
launch correctly. Other types of run time errors may occur while
using the application. Under various scenarios, such as an
incorrect version of some software component in the client system,
the application may simply stop working during execution of one or
more features within the software.
[0006] Performance errors reflect problems that allow the
application to load and run successfully, but at some reduced level
of performance. For example, in a typical installation of Apache
Software Foundation.TM. Apache 5.5 Web Server (hereinafter "Apache
5.5"), the software's ability to resolve one page of Hyper Text
Markup Language (hereinafter "HTML") code and display the output on
a webpage may take 5 milliseconds. In a performance hindered
installation of Apache 5.5, resolving and displaying a web page may
take a full second, causing a drastic reduction in Internet
browsing performance.
[0007] The last type of installation error involves compatibility
problems with other applications. Compatibility problems may allow
the newly installed application to run properly, but one or more
previously installed applications may fail to work correctly after
the new installation. Such errors are often the result from a
common file or group of files shared between multiple software
applications. For example, the parameters in a given configuration
file may be accessed by one or more applications. Such a
configuration file may contain parameters required by the software.
A newly installed application may alter the parameters in such a
way that a previously installed application may be expecting
certain parameters to have remained unchanged. In another example,
one or more software applications may depend upon the existence of
a software service that resides on a computer. For example, many
applications require TCP/IP connectivity services, which is the
standard communication protocol used by computers to communicate
over the Internet. Installation of a new application may replace
TCP/IP version 6.2 with 7.0. However, previously installed
applications may be incompatible with TCP/IP version 7.0, causing
the existing applications to experience errors.
[0008] The reasons for such software installation errors vary. Some
errors are the result of the installation tools that install
software onto a computer. Normally, software is delivered to users
as a compact disc ("CD") or digital versatile disc ("DVD") or other
form of removable storage media. A user would place the disk into
the computer's optical drive and follow the instructions for
installation. These instructions are human defined tools that
physically install the files onto a storage medium. The tools are
prone to errors during installation for a variety of reasons.
Installation errors may also result from the way software
applications are constructed and packaged, rather than the
installation tools that apply the software onto a computer system.
Installation tools are human created, which allows for the
possibility of human-generated errors. The packaging and
construction of software are also defined by humans. As a result,
the packaging of software may be prone to installation errors as
well.
[0009] Software is normally constructed of multiple packages. Each
package usually has one or more pieces of functionality within the
entire software application. Each piece of functionality will
further contain numerous individual files containing software code.
An individual software file comes in the form of differing types of
functionality. For example, a software file could be a shared
library file, configuration file, executable file, etc. A shared
library is a human understandable listing of variables, functions
or procedures that define how certain functions of a software
application work. It would also be accessible by one or more other
files, hence the reason it is called a "shared" library. A
configuration file may also be in human understandable language.
Its function is to define variables that are used throughout the
software application. For example, one entry in a configuration
file might specify that the default installation path for the
software is /bin/usr/apps. This variable could be changed by
editing the file at any time. An executable file differs in that it
is not readily understandable by humans. The executable file is a
compilation of one or more files, containing software code, that
have been compiled to create a binary file understandable to a
computer directly.
[0010] In an example of the delineation of functionality between
software packages, an accounting application may contain a package
that controls accounts receivable. Another package may control the
functionality for accounts payable. Such package-based presentation
of a software application is the result of the way software
applications are written. Software packages are usually written by
numerous software programmers. In order to manage the efforts of
each programmer, their tasks are divided into small pieces of
functionality where each functional piece can communicate with each
other. The division of such functional pieces often results in
packages. For example, a software application may comprise 57
packages, with each package comprising hundreds of individual
files. One group of software programmers might be tasked with
writing the accounts receivable portion and its associated files,
with another group responsible for the accounts payable portion and
its associated files. Knowing how to divide the functionality
between each software package is as much an art as it is computer
science.
[0011] The division of functionality between packages is the result
of compromises. On one side, the more packages that an application
comprises, the greater the ability to divide functionality between
each package, resulting in a more compact and compartmentalized
design. For example, if a software application contains 20
packages, the amount of functionality required in each package is
far more than if the same application had 200 packages. On the
other side of the compromise, the smaller the number of packages,
the easier it is for a system administrator to grasp the division
of functionality. Typically, a system administrator is the person
or persons within an enterprise that is responsible for installing
and maintaining software applications in the enterprise
environment. When installing a software application comprised of
individual packages the administrator executes an initial
installation script that begins the installation process. Depending
on the specific software application and its complexity, an
installation script may pose one or more questions to the
administrator. Such questions might involve where to physically
install the software within the computer's file system, what
optional features or services are desired, or the privilege level
for installing the software. Conventionally, the software
installation process is script driven. Installation scripts set
forth the above types of questions and record the answers for later
use during the installation. For example, if a script asks where to
install an application, the provided answer would then be used
during installation to install the application in the desired
location in the file system.
[0012] One way that an administrator is able to reduce the amount
of interaction required during an installation is to modify the
installation scripts to remove the questions and enter the answers
directly into the script. Hence, when the installation script is
executed, no questions are asked, as the answers are already
provided.
[0013] Along with the compromises mentioned above, there are
additional problems which continue to escalate over the life cycle
of a typical application. These problems are mostly centered on a
concept sometimes referred to as "software drift." Once a software
application and its division of functionality between packages is
defined, it becomes familiar to the system administrators who
install and maintain the application. If the division of
functionality between packages changes in the future (i.e., it
"drifts") whether from the fixing of software bugs, functionality
improvements or additions, etc., this may cause difficulty for the
system administrators who were already familiar with the previous
delineation of packages. Hence, software drift can create a growing
conflict between the needs of the administrators and the
preferences of the software developers as versions of a software
application incrementally change. For example, when a software
application is originally created, the original definition of the
individual packages within the application likely involved a
compromise between the functional interaction between the
individual files that make up the package and something
comprehendible by system administrators. However, as software
versions increase, it is likely that the delineation between the
packages will change which in turn increases the complexity of the
installation as well as the potential for various installation
errors.
[0014] To address these problems, packaging formats for software
are continually evolving. However, each change tends to represent
minor or incremental improvements over the prior approach that only
address the results of the inherent problems rather than the
inherent problems of software packaging. Much of the hesitation to
change how software is packaged is due to the unwillingness of
software vendors to change the way software development projects
are designed. A software application is a self-contained entity
that can be delivered on a CD/DVD-Rom. Rarely would this
application have any relationships to any other software
application. This is one of the major problems with the current
method for software packaging. All of the decisions and software
dependencies are made at the time of the software creation. Hence,
the developers are aware of the various computing system
configurations and generally attempt to account for them, but they
know little about the uniqueness of the particular computing
systems the software is installed on.
[0015] There are a number of software packaging formats in use
today, many of which date back to the 1980s when the current
problems of software packaging originated. FIG. 1 is a block
diagram illustrating the general components in a conventional
computer software package. There are five major components to a
basic software application 100. The core software inventory 110 is
the main component that contains the actual files of the software
application 100. These files are organized into packages. The core
software inventory 110 is the eventual compilation of bits to be
installed onto a computing system. One or more of these files are
often stored in a compressed format.
[0016] Functional relationships with other packages 120 are the
second major component of a basic software application 100. A
functional relationship is a requirement, by the software to be
installed, that something else must exist before installation of
the software application to run properly. For example, a functional
relationship may require that an additional software application or
service be installed before the new software application can be
installed. In order to install Apache 5.5, for example, TCP/IP
services should be installed on the system. In other examples, a
functional relationship may require that certain services be
installed concurrently with the software to be installed, or that
certain software or services not be present on the computing system
due to incompatibilities between certain software applications and
services.
[0017] Finally, in yet another example, a functional relationship
may require that one or more software applications or services be
de-installed before installation of the new software because the
new software may replace one or more packages.
[0018] The package manifest 130 is the third component in the basic
software package 100. The package manifest 130 involves a list of
all of the files with the packages that make up the basic software
application 100. Thus, the manifest lists all of the files in the
core software inventory 110. The manifest is often used for
validation purposes in order to confirm that each and every file
required for installation is accounted for within the software
inventory core.
[0019] A pre-installation script 140 is the next component in the
basic software package 100. This script describes what needs to be
validated prior to the installation of a software application.
Generally speaking, a script is a software file that sequentially
lists steps that are to be executed. For example, a script may list
steps for creating a new directory, moving files into it from
another location, validating the size of the files as being within
a threshold range and sending an email if the files are outside the
threshold range. There are numerous scripting languages that exist
for writing scripts, such as: perl, python, tcl, etc. As mentioned
above, there can often be numerous dependencies that exist between
the software to be installed and other software or services that
may be needed, etc. Other validation requirements may be included
in a pre-installation script 140 aside from dependencies. For
example, the pre-installation script may look to determine if there
is enough disk space to install the software application. Another
example is whether there is enough memory available to run the
application effectively. Further, the pre-installation scripts may
also serve the purpose of asking a system administrator questions
regarding the installation. Examples of such questions were
discussed above.
[0020] A post-installation script 150 is the final component in the
basic software package 100. Similar to the pre-installation script
mentioned above, the post-installation script 150 describes what
needs to be performed after installation of the software
application 100 has been completed. An example of such a script
entry may be that the computing system needs to be rebooted in
order for new startup processes to be loaded or old ones to be
deleted. In another embodiment, the post-installation script 150
may require de-fragmentation of the hard drive, depending on the
nature of the installation and where the files are store on the
hard drive.
[0021] FIG. 2 is a block diagram that illustrates the functional
relationships between the packages that comprise Software
Application A. Software application A (200) comprises packages 1-5
(210-250). Each package encapsulates a group of one or more
functions required to install the application. Coming out of each
package are a number of straight lines connected to other packages.
These lines 205 illustrate the functional relationships that exist
between packages. For example, package 1 (210) has an
interrelationship with packages 2 (220), 3 (230) and 5 (250).
Hence, it is not possible to install package 1 (210) without the
inclusion of packages 2, 3 and 5 as each of these packages
interrelate to one another. For example, package 1 may provide the
function of accounts receivable within an accounting software
application. Since accounts payable (e.g., package 2 (220)) is an
essential part of the software application, it would not be
possible to install package 1 without also installing package 2.
Further, package 2 (220) also has a functional relationship 205 to
other packages. Packages 3, 4 and 5 (230, 240 and 250) also have
functional relationships 205 to other packages. In this example,
there are only five packages, which are quite manageable for a
system administrator. However, if those five packages are extracted
down to the granular level (not shown for simplicity), there may be
thousands of files with thousands of functional relationships
between the files. A typical system administrator would be greatly
challenged to comprehend the hierarchy and functional relationships
of so many files.
[0022] Much of the recent development of software packaging has
focused on improvements in three core components of the basic
software package, namely functional relationships on external
application, pre-installation and post-installation scripts.
Software vendors are putting forth much effort on making
improvements to the pre-installation and post-installation scripts
and their descriptions. One of the original challenges to software
vendors was that these scripts were not well validated and could
not adjust to specific installation needs. One attempt at
addressing this challenge is by writing scripts with meta
languages, such as XML. This may allow for a more syntactical
runtime verification of these scripts. An example of such XML-based
install scripts is the Debian packaging format used by many recent
versions of the Linux.TM. operating system.
[0023] Management and validation of functional relationships is the
other core component where much effort is being placed on
improvements to the basic software application. The generation of
functional relationships are human defined. This means that
software developers have to determine which functional
relationships are required before installation of a software
application. As such, the creation of functional relationship
within software is prone to human errors since they are
artificially created during development and do not necessarily
correspond to the unique functional relationships that may occur
during installation. In other words, conventional functional
relationship creation occurs at a point in time before the
installation of a software application. Hence, these functional
relationship are generic in that they exist for all computing
system configurations without any ability to change depending on
the uniqueness of each computing system environment. Another
problem that can exist from the human declaration of functional
relationships are circular relationships between individual
software files that cannot be resolved because the relationships
are created based on artificial constraints. A circular
relationship occurs when two software files or functional blocks of
software code are both declared to relate to each other. As a
solution, developers are creating automated validators that help
define functional relationships. Such validators can then be used
validate the functional relationships in a software package.
[0024] As described above, there are inherent problems with the way
that software is conventionally packaged and installed on computing
systems today.
SUMMARY
[0025] Aspects of the present invention provide a novel approach to
packaging and installing software. In order to streamline the
software installation process, system administrators should be
provided the opportunity to install the minimal components and
features they need. With conventional packaging techniques, this
ability is strained. Conventionally, software applications are
divided into distinct packages of functionality. Each package
usually includes more functionality than is needed for a custom
installation. However, there is limited ability to pick and choose
the functions desired. As a result, installed software applications
often include more functionality than desired. As such, additional
disk space and other finite computing resources are wasted.
Further, system administrators often resort to manual deletion of
unneeded functionality which can further reduce the stability of
their systems. Other problems with conventional software packaging
and installation techniques result in many failed installations.
Installations may fail in a number of ways as described in Section
II. Implementations conforming to aspects of the present invention
or those set forth in the related applications succeed in reducing
the number of software installation errors by learning from the
mistakes of previously failed attempts and customizing installation
routines to circumvent such failures. Various implementations of
the present invention may also recognize that the way to address
these problems is not to incrementally improve the existing
approaches to software packaging where dependencies are created
during the development cycle. Instead, aspects of the present
invention revolve around delaying the time for dependency creation
to the time of each individual install.
[0026] One particular aspect of the present invention involves a
method for generating a software installation map. The method
includes receiving a first software package comprising at least a
first software file and a second software file, the first software
file being dependent on the second software file. The method
further involves generating a first software element representing
the first software file and generating a second software element
representing the second software file. Finally, the method involves
generating a first dependency pointer representing the dependency
between the first software file and the second software file.
[0027] These and other aspects of implementations of the present
invention are set forth in greater detail below.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0028] FIG. 1 (prior art) is a block diagram illustrating the
general components in a conventional computer software package;
[0029] FIG. 2 (prior art) is a block diagram that illustrates the
functional relationships between a set of packages for an example
software application A;
[0030] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for
installing an application involving the operation of unpacking a
software application, generating a file-level dependency map, and
using the map to install an application;
[0031] FIG. 4 is a block diagram depicting one example of a
client-server arrangement that may be used in some implementations
set forth herein, the arrangement involving a dependency map hosted
at a server-side configuration and available to client-side system
administrators when installing software;
[0032] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of aspects of a particular method
of performing a software installation;
[0033] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating a portion of a
software dependency map;
[0034] FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating dependency map
generator modules that are involved in building and/or refreshing a
software dependency map;
[0035] FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of one
particular method of generating a dependency map;
[0036] FIG. 9 is a flow diagram illustrating one particular method
of generating a dependency map;
[0037] FIG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating an OS specific
module as well as additional modules involved in resolving
dependencies between software elements;
[0038] FIG. 11 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a
dependency map with a software boundary overlay;
[0039] FIG. 12 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of one
particular method of creating a software boundary overlay in a
dependency map;
[0040] FIG. 13 is a block diagram illustrating components involved
in dependency route calculation;
[0041] FIG. 14 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of a method
of generating a dependency route for installing, updating, or
otherwise modifying an application or "installation" on a target
computer or computers;
[0042] FIG. 15 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a
dependency route overlay;
[0043] FIG. 16 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of a method
of generating a rapid dependency route for installing, updating, or
otherwise modifying an application on a target computer or
computers;
[0044] FIG. 17 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of a method
for performing a pre-installation verification of a dependency
route;
[0045] FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating another embodiment
of a dependency route calculator that includes modules that collect
and use successful and unsuccessful installations to optimize
future installations, amongst other functions;
[0046] FIG. 19 is a method for updating a dependency graph to
account for software elements that may no longer be useful in
installations;
[0047] FIG. 20 is a block diagram illustrating a software
management agent on a target computer that tracks and analyzes
information about run-time failures and performance statistics of
successfully installed routes and communicates the information to
component modules in dependency map generation to optimize
installation route information;
[0048] FIG. 21 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for
performing a software installation simulation;
[0049] FIG. 22 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of a method
for validating an installation using a installation validation
thread;
[0050] FIG. 23 is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of a method
for performing a system rollback; and
[0051] FIGS. 24A and 24B is a flow diagram illustrating aspects of
a method for duplicating software across multiple servers.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0052] This detailed description of various implementations of the
invention claimed in this or the related applications is subdivided
into six major sections: section I ("Introduction"); section II
("Removing the Need for Software Packaging"); section III
("Software Dependency Maps"); section IV ("Software Dependency
Routes"); section V ("Enriching the Dependency Map by Monitoring
Software Installations and Performance"); and, section VI
("Software Installation Simulation and Intelligent Software
De-installation"). The first section provides an introduction and a
description of some of the overarching concepts of a dependency map
and related implementations set forth herein. A dependency map
involves a collection of software elements, which each include a
reference to some type of software file, and the dependency
relationship between the software elements. The dependency map
provides the vehicle by which a software application may be
installed at some target computer. Finally, the introduction
provides a description of a service provider that generates and
hosts a software dependency map for use by a client for
installation.
[0053] The second section provides a detailed description of a
method for installing software that begins at the file level rather
than the package level. If individual software files are removed
from the constraints of conventional packages and related at a more
granular level, the inherent problems caused by packages may be
alleviated. In addition, section II discusses how to install and
manage software from the file level as well as the dependencies
that exist down at a granular level. Absent features of various
implementations set forth herein, such a granular level could make
a system administrator's ability to grasp the additional number of
pieces and their dependencies exceedingly difficult. For example,
with the traditional approach to software packages, a software
application may comprise 57 interrelated functional packages. This
number of packages and their relationships are typical of a
conventional software application. Functional relationships at the
package level are readily ascertained and managed by a system
administrator. However, aspects of the present invention define a
software application at the individual file level with perhaps
thousands of files, making it potentially more difficult for a
system administrator to ascertain all of the file level interaction
and manage the same. To remedy such a potential problem, aspects of
the present invention involve a method of using a dependency map to
determine which software files are needed to install a software
application. Lastly, section two sets forth methods for managing
pre-installation and post-installation conditions by adding such
pre-installation and post-installation conditions as attributes to
individual software files in a dependency map.
[0054] The third section provides additional details of software
dependency maps and various possible particular implementations.
Thus, the third section builds on the dependency map descriptions
set forth in the introduction. All software files depend upon or
are dependent on one or more other software files. A dependency
map, in one particular configuration, is a memory resident dynamic
model of the relationships between each software file of a given
software application and other applications, while also accounting
for the operating systems in which they reside. Over time, a given
dependency map may grow in size as software applications or
features thereof are added to the map, or may shrink when
applications or features thereof are removed. The dependency map
may also include a weighting system that reflects a confidence
factor between software element dependencies. For example, if
software file A is known to depend upon the presence of software
file B, a confidence factor may be built into this dependency. The
factor may exist in the form of a percentage of installations that
have been successful based on this dependency as related to the
total attempts. So, if 85 out of 100 attempts at installing a
software application using the dependency between A and B, were
successful, that dependency may have a confidence factor of
85%.
[0055] The third section also discusses various aspects of a client
agent that interacts with a remotely hosted dependency map at
various level. For example, in one implementation a dependency map
is hosted by a remote service provider and a local computer hosts a
client agent capable of communication with the service provider's
map. Installing a software application on a client computer
involves the client agent requesting the map at the service
provider. The intellectual property contained in a software
dependency map is often a trade secret and is kept confidential by
its owners. Further, the amount of data contained in such a map
could be enormous. In result, hosting the entirety of the map on
each individual computer while possible, may be undesirable. Hence,
aspects of the present invention involve placing a client-based
software agent on each computer that is capable of accessing and
querying only relevant portions of the remotely hosted dependency
map to install a particular software application.
[0056] The fourth section provides a detailed description of the
dependency route portion of the dependency map. A dependency route
involves a list (or "path" in the context of a map) of software
files needed to install a software application. Almost all software
applications may be installed in different ways. For example, the
same software application may be installed to achieve the fastest
run time, the highest reliability, the highest security, etc. Each
configuration will most likely change the software files required
for installation. Hence, a dependency route involves a pathway in
the map, between every file needed to install a software
application under the conditions chosen by a user. As software file
dependencies have confidence factors, so do individual dependency
routes. For example, if 79 out of 100 installations used a specific
dependency route for installing application A on operating system
B, the confidence factor for that route would be 79%. Whereas a
different dependency route that installs the same software on the
same operating system may be successful 150 out of 172 attempts,
resulting in a higher confidence factor of 87%. There are likely to
be multiple possible routes through the map for any particular
software installation configuration.
[0057] The fifth section provides a detailed description of methods
for monitoring software installations based on a given dependency
route as well as methods for analyzing software performance of a
given installation. Client-side monitoring agents may be used on
each computer to monitor the performance of a given dependency
route. Such performance data may be uploaded to the central service
provider that hosts the dependency map. Over time, the service
provider for the dependency map collects performance data for each
application using different dependency routes. Such data may be
implemented into the dependency map as a means of further adding to
confidence weightings of particular dependency routes.
[0058] The sixth section provides a detailed description of methods
for simulating a software installation based on a given dependency
route without actually installing the software. Such a simulation
can forecast the ramifications of an installation on a computer by
provisioning a virtual operating system and the list of currently
installed software on the computer. By using such a simulation,
potential installation time or run time errors can be flagged
before the actual installation is performed. Section six also
discusses the use of intelligent backup of an installation. By
knowing the steps and ordering of a route taken to install an
application, the same application can be backed-out along the same
route. Through use of the dependency map and the dependency route
used, an installation can be removed by knowing the list and
ordering of software files that need to be removed. In contrast,
convention de-installation techniques are converging in that they
move forward in time trying to merge back to a state that resembles
the previously stored state.
[0059] In summary, sections one through six teach various methods
for replacing the conventional software application packaging
approach by removing the functional packages from each application.
Individual files that comprise software packages are extracted and
placed into a dependency map. Dependencies between each file, or
software elements, are further added into the dependency map.
Customized dependency routes are further added into the dependency
map, allowing for true installation-time customization of software
applications. Lastly, methods are set forth for simulating software
installations, measuring and increasing performance of installed
applications, and intelligent software de-installation routines.
There are other inventive features set forth in further detail
below.
I. Introduction
[0060] One feature that various implementations set forth herein
build upon or leverage in some way is the dependency map. A
dependency map, also at times referred to herein as an
"installation map", involves a set of software elements and
dependency relationships between the software elements. Each
software element is extracted from some particular software
application that may be installed on a computer. To achieve this, a
conventional software package is "unpacked" to extract the various
files that make-up the various packages of a software application.
The various files are added to a dependency map, and form one
attribute of a software element. The files or the software elements
are analyzed to determine their dependency relationships with other
software elements, and these dependency relationships are further
added to the map. From the map, dependency or "installation" routes
may be derived. A dependency route involves a list of software
elements corresponding to a particular installation, which routes
are leveraged to facilitate installation of a software application
on a target computer. FIG. 3 is a flow diagram, discussed
throughout this section, illustrating a method for installing an
application, the operations involving unpacking a software
application, generating a file-level dependency map, and using the
map to install an application.
[0061] In one particular embodiment set forth herein, a method and
various related features are described in the context of a service
provider model where the service provider generates and hosts the
dependency map and is involved in updating, etc. In such a context,
installations are performed at client devices. However, a service
provider model is simply one possible arrangement for deploying and
using a dependency map. Such additional systems are further
described throughout this application. As alluded to above, one
inventive concept set forth herein involves the transformation of
software from high-level packages to low-level individual files for
the purpose of installation amongst others. In the service provider
context, the service provider transforms the software (e.g.,
unpacking the software packages and defining a dependency map
setting forth the file-level dependencies both within the software
application and to external software application), hosts the
dependency map, and provides knowledge to end-users on how best to
install software hosted with the model, amongst other
functions.
[0062] In one possible arrangement, a dependency map hosted and
generated by a service provider is available as a fee-based
service. Such a fee could be based on a per-request basis, annual
maintenance fee basis with unlimited installation requests, or
other fee arrangements.
[0063] In a service provider configuration, the service provider
provides the infrastructure (e.g., servers, storage, functional
modules, etc.) to generate and hosts the software dependency map.
The generation and management of the dependency map is further
described in Sections II and III and other places throughout this
document. In one fundamental respect, a dependency map is a logical
collection of each individual file from one or more software
applications added to the map and a dependency relationship between
the files. The server-side computing components include modules (as
described with respect to FIGS. 7, 10 and others) that are
configured to disassemble a software application's packages into
their individual files and represent each file in the map as
software elements (operation 300, FIG. 3). In one embodiment, a
software element is a representation of an individual file that is
part of a software application. Further, a software element stores
a plurality of attributes to describe each file represented by the
element. One attribute is a pointer (such as a network address,
attached memory address, database pointer, etc) to the physical
location of the represented file. Additional attributes represent
dependency relationships, confidence factors, timestamps,
versioning, etc which are discussed through out this
application.
[0064] As will be further described below in Section III, each
software element in the map has at least one dependency
relationship with another software element. Generally speaking, a
dependency relationship indicates that the file represented by the
software element is depended upon or depends upon at least one
other file represented by another software element. The reason for
dependencies between software elements is to allow a collection of
individual software elements to work together to form a functional
software application. For example, a specific software element may
be an executable file that is dependent upon execution parameters
stored in a library file that is shared by additional software
elements. If the executable file did not have a dependency on the
shared library file, the executable file would be unable to run
successfully. In order to resolve the dependencies between each
software element in the dependency map, additional modules coupled
to the dependency map, are configured to resolve and represent
these dependencies within the map (operation 310, FIG. 3). These
processes are further described with respect to FIG. 9 and
elsewhere. Operations 300 and 310 of FIG. 3 are repeated for each
software application hosted by the dependency map. As a result, the
dependency map may represent a plurality of software applications
that are each represented at the file level by individual software
elements, along with the dependencies that exist between each
element. It is possible that a dependency map may include millions
of software elements and dependencies. FIG. 11 illustrates a
graphical example of a dependency map.
[0065] In one particular embodiment, the infrastructure and
contents of a software dependency map are organized and stored in a
scalable database (e.g., relational, object-oriented, etc.). Such a
database contains multiple tables with each one representing
software elements and their attributes, dependencies, and their
attributes, between elements, software boundary overlays,
dependency route overlays and their attributes, route calculation
overlays and their attributes and other components configured to
create the infrastructure of a software dependency map. As
described below, the actual software files represented by software
elements may be stored in a second database. The software elements
maintain a pointer to the physical database location of the files
they represent. As such, the database providing the infrastructure
of the software dependency map may communicate with the database
storing the actual software files represented by the dependency
map.
[0066] Once a dependency map is created, specific dependency routes
may be implemented throughout the map. A dependency route is a
collection of software elements having dependencies with at least
one other software element, wherein the elements each represent an
individual file forming part of a software application that will be
installed on a target computer or computers based on specific
requirements and configuration parameters. The route may be
considered a pathway through the dependency map between a first
collection of software elements that are related to a current state
of the software resident on the target computer to a second
collection of software elements that will allow the addition of a
new software application, upgrade or reconfiguration of a current
software application. FIG. 15 provides a graphical example of a
dependency route running through an example dependency map. The
dependency map is coupled to a route manager (as shown in FIG. 13)
that is configured to analyze the software elements that comprise a
software application and generate specific software dependency
routes that may be used to install the application on a client
machine (operation 320, FIG. 3). Once a client communicates their
installation requests to the service provider or whatever computing
system is provided to host the dependency map, the route manager
determines one or more dependency routes that may accomplish the
specific needs of the client. The dependency routes are then
transmitted to the client for installation (operation 330).
[0067] Once a client has decided on their installation needs, they
have many options on how to proceed. First, they may install the
software based on one of the dependency routes provided by the
dependency map. Secondly, the client may run a simulation (as
described in Section VI) of the chosen dependency route to
determine if the route would result in a successful installation.
Based on the success of the simulation, the client may chose to
install the route or request an alternate route from the dependency
map. Lastly, the client may take a snapshot of their current
system. A snapshot is a detailed description of the current
software inventory and system configuration of a computing system.
Multiple snapshots may be taken that represent the current state of
the computing system at differing periods of time. If errors occur
during the installation, the client may request to uninstall or
back-out the installation (as described in Section VI) in order to
place the client machine in the same position before the
installation commenced (i.e., at the snapshot). This approach
differs from conventional back-out methods that move forward to
place the machine in the previous configuration. Whereas, the
inventive approach moves backwards in order to place the machine in
its previous configuration, resulting in a substantially identical
mirror of the machine's previous state.
[0068] Lastly, client machines are capable of communicating the
success or failure of installations back to the service provider
(operation 340). Such information may be used to implement a
weighting system on the confidence of dependency routes and
individual dependencies between software elements.
II. Removing the Need for Software Packaging
[0069] A purpose for combining a software application into packages
is to allow system administrators to grasp the interrelationships
between each functional package of the application. The smaller the
number of packages, the easier it is to grasp their
interrelationships. As stated above, conventional software packages
are not represented at the granular level of individual files
because a typical system administrator would find it exceedingly
difficult to grasp the vast number of individual files and the
complex dependencies that exist between them. Hence, this is one of
the reasons that conventional software is represented at a higher
package level as previously described with respect to FIG. 2 and
elsewhere, particularly in the Background section.
[0070] File level dependency mapping set forth in accordance with
aspects of the present invention is useful for custom
installations, besides other advantages. In many software
installations, not all files of a software application are
required. However, based on the way conventional software is
packaged, additional files are usually installed that will not be
needed by the current configuration. In most software
installations, many of the individual files are part of the core of
the application. These core files are required no matter what
installation parameters or options are chosen. However, the
remaining non-core files in an application may be
configuration-dependent in that they are only needed under certain
circumstances. For example, Apache 5.5 may have 50 files devoted to
a certain type of security feature that an administrator may chose
to forego. Another 20 files may be "help" files that describe how
to run and configure a web server. The decision to install these
files should be optional. However, conventional software packaging
often makes optional file installation difficult. Further,
knowledge of which files are needed for each of the above examples
would be difficult or impossible for an administrator to ascertain
as there may not be available information describing which files
correspond to which features.
[0071] Besides making custom installations difficult or impossible,
as set out above, conventional software packaging is also a cause
of installation failures. Aspects of the present invention thus
involve a solution that removes the need for software packages,
allowing it to be organized at the granular file level, and also
providing a way to facilitate installation from the root file
level.
[0072] Once the artificial constraints created by software packages
are removed, focus can be placed on the individual software
elements representing each file and their relationships with one
another (i.e. dependencies). However, software element dependencies
are often not absolute. In other words, a dependency between
element A and element B may not always need to exist. There are
examples where such a dependency is needed and others where it is
not needed. For example, if an administrator wishes to install a
software package based on "the most reliable version", element A
may not depend on element B. However, if an administrator wishes to
install the same software package based on "the latest version",
element A may indeed depend on element B. Under this example, the
dependency between element A and B is not absolute.
[0073] Another factor that affects whether a dependency exists are
that certain dependencies can create "circular relationships" that
should be resolved (i.e., redirecting or adding a dependency to
another element to remove the circular relationship or provide a
link to a software element outside the circle). If an absolute
dependency exists within a "circular relationship", this can make
resolution of such a relationship difficult. An absolute dependency
is where A will always depend on B no matter what the circumstance.
An example of a circular relationships would be A depends on B
which depends on C which depends on A. In this example, if the
dependency between C and A is absolute (i.e., always exists), there
would be no way to resolve this circular relationship since C
always depends on A and A depends on B which depends on C. If
however, the absolute dependency between C and A were only
necessary due to a certain symbol that could also be met by D, than
the circular relationship could be resolved by redirecting C to
depend on D instead of A.
[0074] Yet another factor is that there are other parameters other
than pure positive dependencies. There may be stated
incompatibilities between elements and there may be replacement
relationships where a new element with similar functionality might
replace it. For example, in a specific software application,
package A may have a stated dependency on package libCORE. The
software developer responsible for packaging this software may have
defined this dependency because package A contains an executable
command called "ps". In order to execute "ps", the memchk command
is needed. In this example, memchk is stored in the library
definitions of libC which is further a part of package libCORE. It
may be possible that memchk also exists in a different set of
library definitions called libgtk which is part of package GTKlibs.
In this case GTKlibs is a replacement dependency for package A,
even though package libCORE also includes the same memchk element
needed by "ps". The reason a software developer chose a stated
dependency on libCORE instead of GTKlibs may be that GTKlibs is
part of a different software application which may not be installed
on the computer. However, if the software application that includes
the GTKlibs package is present, the dependency from package A may
be changed from libCORE to GTKlibs, in implementations conforming
to aspects of the invention.
[0075] One particular implementation involves a server-side
dependency map that provides software application information at
the software element level rather than the package level. FIG. 4 is
a block diagram depicting one example of client-server architecture
where the dependency map 400 is hosted by a database 410 in
communication with a server-side computing arrangement (service
provider 420) and available to client-side computers 430 to install
a software application.
[0076] In the example set out in FIG. 4, the one or more client
computers 430 would seek access to the service provider's
dependency map 400 and the installation routes that may be derived
therefrom. In one embodiment, client computers 430 communicate with
the service provider 420 via the Internet 440. In another
embodiment, client computers 430 may communicate with the service
provider 420 via a local or enterprise-wide network (not shown). To
facilitate communications between clients 430 and the service
provider 420, a client-side software installation agent 450 may
reside on each client computing system where software installations
are desired. This software agent 450 is able to communicate with
the service provider 420 to make installation requests as well as
receive installation instructions, besides other functions.
Further, the software elements (or related files) needed to fulfill
an installation request may be transmitted from the service
provider 420 to the client 430 over the Internet, local,
enterprise-wide networks, or other removable storage media (e.g.,
the root level file may be recorded on optical disc, etc.)
[0077] The entity responsible for hosting a dependency map is not
limited to a service provider as previously mentioned. A dependency
map host may come in many forms. However, in one embodiment, the
map is hosted by a third party service provider with no formal
relationships with individual software vendors. The third party
hosts a dependency map that may represent software from one or more
software vendors. In another embodiment, the entity hosting the
dependency map may be an actual software vendor, such that the
dependency map represents software applications specific to the
vendor. Further, the vendor-hosted dependency map may also
represent software applications from other vendors. In another
embodiment, the dependency map entity may be a company that hosts a
dependency map for the software applications used in the company's
enterprise-wide software environment. Such a dependency map would
likely include software from many different software vendors.
[0078] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of aspects of a particular method
of performing a software installation. Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5,
when a system administrator responsible for maintaining a client
computing system wishes to install a software application with
certain requirements, the request is communicated to the software
agent 450 installed on the client computing system (operation 500).
An example of an installation request may set out installation
parameters: a) install Apache 5.5; b) use the securest version
possible; c) run on Sun Microsystems.TM. Solaris.TM. 9.1 operating
system. The software agent installed on the client communicates the
request to the service provider 420 (operation 510).
[0079] The software agent also communicates, either as part of the
installation request or separately, the client's software manifest
to the service provider (operation 520). A client software manifest
is a listing of some and likely all the software applications
installed on the client as well as the individual files that
comprise each application. It is also possible to provide an
arrangement where the software manifest is transmitted to the
service provider whenever there is a software change, allowing the
service provider to maintain a current client manifest. Further,
the manifest may be maintained at the software agent 450, with the
service provider 420 accessing the manifest as part of the
installation path determination (see discussion of operation 530
below).
[0080] With knowledge of the client manifest, the dependency map
400 is analyzed to generate one or more installation paths
commensurate with the installation request (operation 530). The
installation paths are then communicated, to the software agent 450
(operation 540). Once each installation path is received by the
software agent 450, the system administrator may review each path
and determine which installation path to use or the system may be
configured to automatically install the new software using one of
the paths (operation 550). Next, the selected dependency route is
communicated, via the software agent 450, back to the service
provider 420 (operation 560). Lastly, in an implementation where
the service provider hosts the software files, the service provider
streams the files to the client based on the chosen installation
path (operation 570). It is also possible that the client system
will have the files needed for the software application resident on
the files system. In such an arrangement, the software agent is
configured to receive the dependency route and manage the
installation of the file already resident on the client system. It
is also possible for the software agent 450 to obtain files
identified by the installation through various other possible
mediums.
[0081] Two features of a conventional software package based
installation that a dependency map driven installation may
eliminate are pre-installation and post-installation scripts. As
previously discussed with reference to FIG. 1, pre-installation
scripts describe what needs to be validated prior to the
installation of a software application. Post-installation scripts,
on the other hand, describe what needs to occur after installation
of the software application. When using conventional package-based
installation methods, the pre-installation and post-installation
scripts are separate entities from the pre-determined group of
packages. Yet, the scripts are generated at the time of software
development, resulting in generic requirements without knowledge of
the unique computing system configurations the software will
eventually be installed. In stark contrast, when performing an
installation using a dependency map, the collection of required of
software files is generated at the time of the installation as a
function of current computing system features, rendering
pre-created installation scripts unnecessary. Eliminating the
necessity of pre- and post-installation scripts also illuminates
one advantage of certain configurations falling within aspects of
the present invention. Namely, removing the constraints of the
installation scripts, along with other features of various
implementations set forth herein, facilitates file-level customized
installation of a software application.
[0082] Aspects of the present invention may further involve
integrating pre- and post-conditions or requirements of an
installation into each software element as additional attributes.
Conventional pre-installation and post-installation scripts are
created for and bound to a specific conventional software package.
Each script describes conditions or requirements of both the
entirety of a given package as well as the files in the package. As
such, these scripts are package-centric (i.e., they describe
conditions for the entirety of the package.) To circumvent the
problem with package-centric scripts, the pre- and post-condition
attributes of each software element are specific to each particular
element. Pre- and post-installation attributes are extracted from
the original installation scripts 140 and 150 as described with
respect to FIG. 1. The service provider is able to analyze each
condition from the original installation scripts and create an
attribute to a software element any time the original script
references the file represented by the attribute. For example, if
the original installation script states that file A has a stated
dependency on file B, the service provider would add this
requirement, as an attribute, into the software element
representing file A. Therefore, the software element representing
file would have an attribute stating that it is dependent upon
element B.
[0083] The pre- and post-condition attributes of software elements
may be described as being compartmentalized as opposed to the
conventional package-centric scripts. For example, an attribute of
software element A may state a dependency on element B. This
dependency is confined to software element A, allowing the
attribute to be element-centric. Whereas, conventional pre- and
post-installation scripts have a one to many relationship between
all files in the package with no compartmentalization. Hence, in a
conventional packaging script, the dependency from A to B is always
defined even if element A is not needed in the installation.
Whereas, the dependency attribute of A is only declared if A is
included in the dependency route being installed. As a result, only
the pre- and post-conditions defined by elements in the dependency
route are needed, as opposed to every condition being defined in
the convention scripting approach.
[0084] After the service provider builds the list of all software
elements required for an installation, the pre- and post-conditions
built into each software element can be summarized to create a type
of hybrid pre-installation and post-installation script containing
a mere subset of all the conditions from the original pre- and
post-installation scripts. This technique differs from conventional
installation scripts through its ability for creation after the
dependency route is defined. Hence, the scripts are customized
specifically for the installation and the current configuration
existing on the client system. Such a technique offers a flexible
way of managing the pre- and post-installation scripting as the
implicit ordering of the software elements based on dependencies
matches the exact order of execution required by the pre- and
post-conditions built into each software element.
III. Software Dependency Maps
[0085] As already discussed at some length, aspects of the present
invention involve the generation and use of a software dependency
map with element level dependencies, amongst other things, to
facilitate the installation of new software. Further aspects of the
present invention involve the removal of software packaging from
software installations, allowing for software to be represented at
the individual file or software element level of granularity. The
constantly changing nature and intricacies of file level
dependencies makes manual monitoring and use in installation by a
system administrator exceedingly difficult if not impossible.
Hence, a service provider hosts the information needed (i.e.,
knowledge base) to install and organize software at the element
level. As introduced above, the collection of software elements and
their dependencies is referred to herein as a software dependency
map. The size and arrangement of the map is a function of the
number of software applications mapped and the number of files and
dependencies within each mapped application. Accordingly, a
dependency map may represent any number of operating systems and
software applications encompassing literally millions of individual
software elements. Moreover, the map is constantly changing as
installation information arrives from software agents residing at
various client locations as well as new software and/or operating
systems are unpackaged and added to the map.
[0086] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating a portion of a
software dependency map. The lowest level of granularity in this
map 600 is a software element (605, 610, 615, etc.). A software
element is a representation of an individual file, such as a
configuration file, an executable file or a library file. The
software element includes one or more attributes, one of which may
be a pointer to the physical location of the file it represents. In
one embodiment, this attribute may point to a memory address within
a software warehouse (described further in Section IV). Every
software element has some dependency on another element; otherwise,
the element would not be needed as nothing else depends on it being
present. Accordingly, in another embodiment an additional attribute
of a software element is a dependency attribute identifying
dependencies associated with the software element. FIG. 6 comprises
a plurality of software elements each of which has at least one
dependency (illustrated by arrows 650) (e.g., between the blocks)
on another software element. Each software element, depicted by a
block, represents a type of file. In this example, configuration
files, executables files, shared library files and class files are
shown. Within FIG. 6, shared library file 601 is dependent upon
shared library file 605, configuration file 610 depends upon shared
library file 601, executable file 630 depends upon configuration
file 610, and so on.
[0087] In an example from FIG. 6, class file 640 is dependent on
shared library file 601. The actual dependency may be that within
class file 640, function "GetDependencyMap" may be called. The
location of this function exists in shared library file 601.
Therefore, if class file 640 did not have a dependency on shared
library file 601, class file 640 would be unable to call function
"GetDependencyMap". In another example, executable file 630 depends
upon configuration file 610. Configuration file 610 may declare
"TimeOutCounter" with a value of 50 milliseconds. During execution
of executable file 630, the value of "TimeOutCounter" is used to
determine how long to wait before ending execution if no response
is received from another executable file. If configuration file 610
were not present, executable file 630 would be unable to execute
properly since no value would be presented as to when to end
execution.
[0088] FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating various dependency
map generator modules involved in building and/or refreshing a
software dependency map 400. In concurrence with FIG. 7, FIG. 8 is
a flow diagram illustrating the operations involved in converting a
package-based software application into a collection of software
elements and generating a dependency map. The method of FIG. 8 is
discussed with reference to the dependency map generator module of
FIG. 7; however, other processing configurations may be implemented
to perform the operations set out in FIG. 8.
[0089] Particularly referring to FIG. 7, a software collector 705
is configured to collect software applications that will be
unpacked and added to the dependency map 400 (operation 800). In
one embodiment, the software collector 705 interacts with sources
of software 701, such as vendor websites or other software
repositories. In another embodiment, the software collector 705 may
receive destinations for software applications through the
assistance of one or more software seekers 702. Generally speaking,
a software seeker 702 is a module configured to search the Internet
for software applications and additional information useful for
downloading applications. In one configuration, a software seeker
is instructed to locate a particular software application. Once the
particular software application is located by the software seeker,
the destination is relayed to the software collector 705. The
software seeker may also include additional information on
downloading the software such as an FTP or http user name and
password that may be required to download the software. With the
provided information from the software seeker 702, the software
collector 705 downloads the software application from the software
source 701.
[0090] Once a software application has been retrieved by the
software collector 705, it is forwarded to an element unpacker 710.
The element unpacker 710 has two primary responsibilities. First,
the element unpacker 710 determines which operating system
(hereafter "OS") the application has been written for. With the
exception of interpretive languages, software applications are
written for a specific OS. Hence, the process of extracting or
unpacking software elements from an application involves knowledge
of which OS the application is written for. Secondly, the element
unpacker 710 unpacks the software application from the package
level to the file level. As previously described above,
conventional software applications have one or more functional
groupings or "collections" of files known as packages. Unpacking a
software package involves a process of extracting the individual
files from each package.
[0091] Referring now to the OS determination, the element unpacker
710 determines which OS the software is written for. This
determination is made through the assistance of an OS Detector 712
which analyzes the software to determine which OS it has been
written for (operation 810). In one embodiment, the OS detector 712
determines which OS the software is written for through the
assistance of an OS lookup table 718. The lookup table 718 lists
the different types of software packaging formats that exist and
cross-references each type to its appropriate OS class type. The OS
detector is able submit the type of software packaging format to
the lookup table and determine which OS class the packaging format
corresponds too. Next, the OS detector 712 uses the OS class type
to analyze one or more binaries of the software application to
assess which architecture the binary is targeted for (e.g., x86,
Sparc, PowerPC, etc). In many situations, this level of detection
is sufficient to determine the OS of the software application. If
further analysis is required, the OS detector 712 can implement
additional tools to review the package manifest of the software
application to determine which OS the software is targeted for.
Once the correct OS has been determined, the element unpacker 710
may begin extracting the file from the software application's
packages.
[0092] In order for the element unpacker 710 to extract the files
from a software application, it also receives assistance from an OS
specific module 725. An OS specific module 725 or plugin exists for
each OS in which software is written for within the dependency map
400. Once the OS detector 712 determines which OS the software
application is written for, the appropriate OS plugin 725 is called
to assist the element unpacker 710 with extracting the files from
each package in the software application (operation 820). The
element unpacker 710 uses unpacking commands specific to the OS
that the software is targeted for. For example, if the software
application is targeted for UNIX, the element unpacker 710 may use
tar, or gzip to unpack the files from the package. If the
application is targeted for Microsoft.TM. Windows.TM., the element
unpacker 710 may use unzip or rar to extract the files from the
package.
[0093] Once all the files have been extracted, the element unpacker
710 analyzes the software manifest and the installation scripts for
the software application to characterize each file by its file type
(e.g., executable file, configuration file, library file, etc.)
(operation 830). In one embodiment, a file type lookup table is
used to map each file type suffix (e.g. exe, dll, etc.) to the file
type that the suffix corresponds too. For example, if a file has a
"dll" suffix, the lookup table would return shared library as its
file type. In another embodiment, many operating systems provide
commands to analyze a file for its file type. For example, Solaris
has a "file" OS command that will reveal the file type of a
file.
[0094] Lastly, the files extracted from the packages are forwarded
to a graph manager 730. The graph manager 730 is responsible for
creating a software element 745 and adding it to the dependency map
400 (operation 840). As previously stated, a software element
includes an attribute that has a pointer to the physical location
of the file the element represents. As software elements 745 are
placed into the dependency map 400, the graph manager 730 creates a
pointer to the physical location of the file it represents
(operation 850). As stated above, the pointer is stored as an
attribute of each software element. In one embodiment, each file is
stored in a software warehouse or database. Hence, the software
element's pointer would point to the location within the software
warehouse that hosts the actual file. Therefore, when the actual
file is needed, the pointer will direct the dependency map 400 to
the location of the physical file. Further, the graph manager 730
allows for each software element 745 to have additional attributes
associated with it. The details of such attributes are discussed
throughout this application.
[0095] As software elements 745 are added to the dependency map
400, their status is temporary in that the elements are
inaccessible by other modules of the service provider. It is not
until dependencies 747 are created between these software elements
745, that their status is changed to operational allowing the
elements to become available for dependency routes. Once the
software elements 745 have been created and placed into the
dependency map 400, a copy of each element 745 is relayed to the
dependency resolver 715 for analysis of the element's dependencies
747. Through the assistance of the appropriate OS plugin 725, the
dependency resolver 715 launches an OS shell 727. An OS shell is a
minimal instance of an OS which is able to perform a minimal set of
instructions specific to the OS. The dependency resolver 715 is
able to analyze each software element 745 within the OS shell to
determine the dependencies with other software elements 745. The
process for determining each dependency will be further described
below. Once each dependency 747 is determined, the dependency
resolver 715 passes this information to the graph manager 730 to
add to the dependency map 400.
[0096] FIG. 9 is a flow diagram illustrating the operations for
identifying dependencies between the software elements, and the new
element placed in the map as described in FIG. 8. Upon completion
of adding software elements to the dependency map and placing them
in a temporary status, the analysis of dependencies 747 between
each software element 745 begins (operation 900). In many
circumstances, each package in a software application will already
include a number of declared dependencies. These declared
dependencies are often located in item 120 from FIG. 1. Based on
this knowledge, many of the dependencies between individual files
can be extracted from the package and represented in the dependency
map 400 (operation 910). In one embodiment, the specific OS the
software is targeted for includes packaging tools that may be
utilized to extract the dependencies between software elements.
Next, the shared libraries from within the software application are
analyzed to ascertain inter-library dependencies (operation 920).
Each shared library often defines dependencies to other shared
libraries. Upon identification of a shared library, these
dependencies are represented in the dependency map 400. After
shared libraries are analyzed for defined dependencies,
configuration files are analyzed to identify declared dependencies.
Configuration files within a software application may also declare
dependencies between files are identified and represented in the
dependency map 400 (operation 930). Next, all the executable files
from within a software application are analyzed to identify
dependencies (operation 940). Typically, each executable file
contains a symbol table. Analysis of these symbol tables may
identify dependencies that exist between the executable file and
other file types within the software application (operation 950).
An OS typically has commands that are able to analyze executable
symbol tables. For example, UNIX uses a command called "nm" to
analyze symbol tables. Finally, simulated execution of executable
files is possible. Upon execution of an executable file, the
initial execution cycles are analyzed to assess what files are
loaded or referenced during execution (operation 960). Any files
that are loaded or referenced during the initial execution cycles
are identified as dependencies on the executable file. These
dependencies can then be represented in the dependency map.
Recursive use of some or all operations 940-960 may continue
(operation 970) until all the executable files have been analyzed.
Once all the executable files have been analyzed, the dependency
analysis is complete (operation 980) and the newly added software
elements are changed to an operational status.
[0097] FIG. 10 is a block diagram that illustrates an OS specific
module as well as additional modules used to resolve dependencies
between software elements recently added to the dependency map. As
stated above in regards to FIG. 7, the dependency resolver 715
identifies the dependencies for each software element. In order to
accomplish this, the dependency resolver 715 is expected to know
which OS each file, represented by a software element, is written
for. In one embodiment, the OS detector module 712 described in
FIGS. 7 and 8 is in communication with the dependency resolver 715.
The OS detector 712 analyzes a file and determines which OS it is
written for and passes this information to the dependency resolver
715. One or more OS specific modules (also referred to as
"plugins") are coupled to the dependency resolver 715 with each
plugin representing a different OS. Through the assistance of the
appropriate OS plugin 725, the dependency resolver 715 launches an
OS shell 727. As stated above in regards to FIGS. 7 and 8, an OS
shell is a minimal instance of an OS which is able to perform a
minimal set of instructions specific to the OS. The dependency
resolver 715 is able place each file in the OS shell 727 and
analyze the file to identify its dependencies.
[0098] In one embodiment, the dependency resolver is able to
identify the dependencies of a file through the assistance of the
appropriate OS plugin 725. Each OS plugin has a plurality of
individual sub-modules 1010-1030. The OS specific package
dependency analyzer module 1010 performs the functions described
above in regards to operation 900 from FIG. 9. Whereas, sub-modules
1020-1030 are responsible for analyzing each type of software file.
Therefore, depending on what type of file is placed into the OS
shell, one of these sub-modules are called to identify the
dependencies. For example, if the received software element is a
shared library, the OS specific dynamic library dependency analysis
module 1020 is called by the OS plugin 725. This sub-module
analyzes the shared library file and determines what dependencies
exist between the shared library file and any other files. This is
accomplished by checking each line of code within the shared
library file to identify code that declares a dependency. If the
software element being received is a configuration file, an OS
specific configuration file detection module 1025 is called by the
OS plugin 725. This sub-module analyzes the configuration file line
by line to identify code that declares a dependency. If the
received software element is an executable file, two separate
sub-modules are accessed. First, an OS specific symbol analyzer
module 1015 is called by the OS plugin 725. This sub-module
accesses the symbol table of the executable file and checks each
line of code to identify code that declares any dependencies. Next,
an OS specific runtime executable management module 1030 is called
by the OS plugin 725. This sub-module actually launches an OS
virtual container 1040.
[0099] A virtual OS container is a virtualized instance of an OS
running with a minimal set of functionality sufficient to execute
an executable binary file and analyze its run-time path. In one
embodiment, multiple virtual operating systems may run on a single
hardware platform. Once the virtual OS container 1040 is launched,
sub-module 1030 places the executable 1045 into the OS container
1040 along with any known dependencies of the executable. The
executable 1045 is executed with the runtime execution being
monitored to assess for any missing configuration files that are
needed by the executable. These additional configuration files are
then declared as dependencies to the executable. Any additional
dependencies that were declared in the runtime execution path are
then returned to the OS specific runtime executable management
module 1030.
[0100] The previous section discussed the ability to identify
dependencies from executable files using sub-modules with each OS
specific module. This approach works effectively when
identification of the dependencies occurs for software elements
that are part of a software application. However, this approach is
less effective when trying to identify dependencies in an actual
operating system. In the core files comprising an OS, the
dependencies are so tight, that dependency identification should be
fully analyzed as an entirety of the files and not sequentially. In
order to accomplish such analysis of an entire OS, a full version
of the OS is loaded (also known as "provisioned") and its
file-level dependencies are validated.
[0101] The complete system dependency validation is an asynchronous
scheduled act from the actual dependency discovery. Complete system
dependency validation does not define dependencies (which is
accomplished by the dependency resolver) but rather validates the
identified dependencies. Dependencies may nonetheless be redefined
during the validation procedure, such as when an invalid dependency
is identified. One method for validating dependencies is through
the use of a processes referred to as Bare Metal Provisioning. In
this process, the complete OS defined in the dependency map is
collected into an optical disc image (hereinafter "ISO") format and
provisioned onto dedicated hardware that the OS architecture is
targeted for. For example, in analyzing the dependencies of Solaris
9.1, the entirety of the OS may be provisioned on a Sun
Mircosystems Sparc.TM. Station. Once provisioning is complete, a
set of system tests are performed that have been prebuilt as part
of the OS. These tests, common to a particular OS, may be run to
exercise the basic input/output system of the OS to ensure it is
working within expected parameters. In order to include these tests
in the Bare Metal Provision, the files needed to execute these
tests are included.
[0102] A first test includes file system checking such as reading
and writing files to the OS This in turn exercises the kernel of
the OS since basic I/O processing is written as part of the kernel.
A second test includes system error log scraping to ensure that the
running OS is operating within normal parameters. In one
embodiment, this is performed by a log watcher. Since operating
systems classify errors in their system logs based on severity, the
log watcher looks for errors with a severity greatest than a
predetermined threshold severity level. If an error is flagged with
a severity above the threshold, the error is captured for further
analysis.
[0103] A third test includes deployment of a common software
application (e.g., a web server) to see if the operating system
runs the application within the specified parameters. Each deployed
application and test environment may have its own testing
parameters and expected results. However, the general approach is
to verify that the deployed software application runs successfully
(i.e., all dependencies are in place and accounted for.) For
example, if the deployed application were a web server, the test
would verify that the core web server daemon is running and that
any errors returned by application specific error logs are below a
threshold severity level. Upon successful completion of the system
tests described above, the OS as a whole is given a first level
assertion of correctness for the dependencies through the OS.
[0104] In one embodiment, the dependency resolver analyzes the
software files extracted from a package to identify the
dependencies between each file. As previously stated, dependencies
are not necessarily absolute. Installing a software application
"with the most stable version" may require element A be dependent
on element B. Whereas installing the same software "with the newest
version" may show that element A is not dependent on element B.
Hence, in this example the dependency between element A and B is
not absolute, bur rather installation specific. In another example,
a dependency may be declared within the conventional package of the
software application itself, yet not found to exist by the
dependency resolver. To handle this situation, a confidence factor
or weighting is placed on the dependency such that the dependency
still exists, but may likely have a low confidence factor attached
to it. This confidence factor becomes an attribute of the
dependency.
[0105] A confidence factor attached to a dependency can increase
each time the dependency resolver reanalyzes that the dependency is
in fact real. On the opposite end, the confidence factor can
decrease if the dependency resolver reanalyzes the dependency and
finds that it is not required or if an additional software element
was preferred. This allows the dependency map to reflect the
confidence based on computational analysis of the independent
software element. The output is a complex software map that
reflects the true dependencies and relative confidence of the
dependencies for the software applications that are being
mapped.
[0106] Another aspect of the present invention involves dependency
map overlays. In one particular implementation, there are three
types of overlays placed on the dependency map: software boundary
overlays, dependency route overlays and route calculation overlays.
The first type of overlay is described in the next paragraph,
wherein the last two types of overlays are described in Section IV.
Generally speaking, an overlay is a subset of software elements and
their dependencies that are overlaid on top of the primary
dependency map, where the subset of software elements have some
overarching feature in common, such as originating from a common
software application or belonging to a common dependency route.
[0107] The first type of dependency map overlay is a software
boundary overlay, which is a virtual boundary placed around a
collection of software elements that make up the entirety of a
software application and groups them into a form understandable by
a human. One embodiment for creating a software boundary overlay is
performed by analyzing the package manifest 130 of the software
application to identify a list of files for the application. Then
each software element (from the dependency map) that represents the
files from the manifest are collected together to create the
boundary overlay. Other elements with dependencies, not necessarily
identified in the manifest may also be included. In one embodiment,
the software elements that make up a software boundary overlay may
change over time if additional software elements are added or
removed from the application. Such an approach is a replacement for
convention software packaging where one or more packages comprise
the pieces for a software application. It is possible for a
software boundary overlay to include software elements that are not
all related through dependencies, but instead are collected
together to form a human understandable software application. An
example of a software boundary overlay would be an application such
as Apache 5.5.
[0108] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating an example of a dependency
map with a software boundary overlay. FIG. 11 shows a plurality of
software elements 1120 that comprise an example of a dependency map
1100. The bounds of the dependency map 1100 are shown by the dashed
line surrounding the software elements 1120. Each software element
1120 has at least one dependency 1130 upon another software element
1120. The dependencies 1130 are shown as straight lines that
connect two software elements 1120. In this embodiment, there are
no software elements 1120 within confines of the boundary 1110 that
depend upon a software element 1120 outside the boundary 1110. This
example illustrates a single software boundary overlay 1110.
However, a dependency map 1100 may comprise a plurality of software
boundary overlays, each representing different possible
overlays.
[0109] FIG. 12 is a flow diagram illustrating various operations
involved in creating a software boundary overlay in a dependency
map. In one particular implementation, to begin creating a software
boundary overlay, the package manifests 130 of the software
application are analyzed and each software element is extracted
from its package and placed onto the dependency map (operation
1200). The methods used for these processes are described above
with respect to FIG. 8. Once all the software elements are placed
into the dependency map, the dependencies between all of the
software elements are determined and placed onto the dependency map
(operation 1210). The methods used for these processes are
described above with respect to FIG. 9 and otherwise. Next, a
boundary is drawn around all of the software elements derived from
the unpacking of the software application (operation 1220). This
creates the initial bounds of the software application. The
software elements and their dependencies are then analyzed by the
graph manager 730 to identify dangling references (operation 1230).
In one embodiment, a dangling reference is a reference that is
outside the scope of a software boundary or of a dependency that is
not yet defined if the corresponding element is not loaded into the
dependency graph. For example, if a software element within the
bounds of the software boundary overlay shows a dependency on a
software element outside the bounds of the overlay, this would be a
dangling reference. If a dangling reference is found such that the
software element referenced is outside the bounds of the boundary,
the boundary is increased to encompass the new software element
(operation 1240). Moreover, attributes of the software element are
updated to identify the newly added dependency. Hence, the software
boundary overlay is increased in size to include this new software
element. This process continues until each dangling reference is
resolved. Hence, a software boundary overlay will continue to
expand until there are no further dangling references.
[0110] In one embodiment, a software boundary overlay should not
comprise any software elements from any other declared software
boundary overlays. For example, software elements should not be
included in two separate software boundaries. Such a rule prevents
software boundaries from encroaching on each other and keeps them
inherently distinct. The end result is that a software boundary
declares the manifest of a software application that the dependency
map supports. The dependency map itself understands explicitly all
of the dependencies within the software package and all of the
detailed inter dependencies between software packages. But this
level of detail does not need to be known by a system
administrator.
[0111] Aspects of the present invention are also able to address
another concern with conventional software applications; namely,
accounting for patches and minor revision releases in the
installation process. It is known in the art that software
applications change over time. Due to the release of bug fixes or
patches, a software application's version is constantly in flux. As
patches are released, dependencies between software elements may
change. Under such circumstances, a software dependency between
element A and B may exist in the initial release of a software
application. However, once a patch is applied, the dependency
between A and B may no longer exist. The software dependency map is
configured to track software dependency changes over time, in one
particular implementation. For example, assume element B provides
certain functionality in version 1 of an application, with an
element A depending upon B. When version 1.1 is released, the
functionality of B is replaced with new software element C. At this
point, the dependency between A and B is removed and a new
dependency between A and C is created.
[0112] A common request from a customer is that they wish to
install the most "stable" version of a software application. This
request can be version related, as the current version of an
application may not be the most stable version. In one embodiment,
in order to install the most stable version of a software
application, the root software application is installed first,
followed by a potential list of updates, service packs, patches and
point releases to get the software to the configuration requested
by the customer. The root software elements of a software
application do not depend on any other software elements, only
other software elements depend on them. These root elements tend to
remain constant, no matter which version or configuration of the
application is installed In order to map any minor versions of a
software application, the dependency map includes each minor
version, patch or bug fix of the major software application. Hence,
after the root elements are installed, each software element in
each minor version would be mapped, with dependencies, to each root
software element in the major versions.
[0113] Once all the dependencies of each version of a software
application are mapped, the need for mapping dependencies over time
becomes important. In one embodiment, when a dependency is added
into the dependency map, two timestamps are recorded as attributes
to the dependency. Thus, a software element may have time stamp
attributes. First, the timestamp associated with the file
represented by the software element is recorded. Whenever an
individual software file is created, a timestamp is added to the
file. Therefore, a software developer will know when the file was
actually created during development. Second, the software element
includes a timestamp of when it was added into the dependency map.
The timestamp information is stored in the dependency map using a
timeline data construct. A timeline data construct describes a set
of software elements that are all related when they were inserted
into the dependency map. This is how the service provider knows
that a group of software elements are from the same version and
hence part of the same software boundary overlay. As each new
software element and dependency are added to the dependency map,
the timeline construct is also added. As a result of these
timelines, when a customer wishes to install a specific version of
a software application, these timelines are used to calculate the
optimal installation by correlating the timestamp on the root
install software with each of its assumed dependencies. In one
embodiment, the timelines are assembled as fragments and as the
route analyzer of the dependency map analyzes the map, it assembles
the overall timeline of software that needs to be installed. The
above is applicable if there are more than one version of a
software application and each version has the same dependency
resolution.
IV. Software Dependency Routes
[0114] The previous section discussed a first type of dependency
map overlay referred to herein as a "software boundary overlay."
This section describes a second type of dependency map overlay
referred to herein as "a dependency route overlay." The dependency
map is a vehicle for identifying and facilitating various possible
software installations. Software elements and their dependencies
from mapped software applications are set forth in the dependency
map. A dependency route is one of many paths or ways of connecting
a group of software elements based on specific installation needs.
From another perspective, a dependency route is a list of software
elements and the dependencies associated with the elements that get
a customer from their current place in the dependency map (starting
collection of software elements) to where they want to be (ending
collection of software elements conforming to an installation
goal). For example, installing Apache 5.5 on Solaris 9 would create
a dependency route through the map connecting each software element
needed to install Apache 5.5 on Solaris 9. The starting point might
be all the software elements for Apache 5.0 on Solaris 9 (obtained
from target computer) and the ending point is the collection of
software elements for Apache 5.5 on Solaris 9. There may be
software elements added, removed and consolidated along the path.
Installing the most stable version of Apache on Solaris 9 would
take a slightly different route through the map as it may involve
Apache 5.5 or some other version. As such, the collection of
software elements that comprise each installation may be
different.
[0115] As with software boundary overlays, dependency routes are
subsets of information contained within the dependency map. To
restate, the dependency map is a collection of software elements
and their dependencies that are placed in the map by the
apparatuses and methods described in FIGS. 7-10 and elsewhere.
Dependency routes are formed from a subset of all possible software
elements to advance an installation goal. Moreover, dependency
routes reflect customer installation choices, analysis of the
installation success, and feedback to the map concerning the same.
The installation feedback is captured in a confidence factor tied
to a given dependency route.
[0116] Dependency routes do not exist automatically from the
creation of the dependency map. Dependency routes are first defined
when a specific installation is undertaken by a dependency route
calculator. The routes are refined over time based on success and
failure feedback based on the actual install. FIG. 13 is a block
diagram illustrating an embodiment of the components involved in
generating a dependency route. In the service provider arrangement
set out in FIG. 13, there is both a customer environment and a
service provider environment. In Section III above, the concept of
a software installer or software management agent operating on the
client environment was discussed. The software agent 1350 is a
client-based service that manages communication with the service
provider hosting the dependency map 1310.
[0117] In concurrence with FIG. 13, FIG. 14 is a flow diagram
illustrating the operations performed by the service provider to
calculate a dependency route overlay for a client system or
systems. First, the client relays software installation requests to
the software agent 1350 (operation 1400). In an example, it may be
the goal to install, on a client system, the fastest version of
Apache 5.5 that runs on Solaris 9. Upon receiving the request, the
software agent 1350 obtains the current software manifest for the
client computing system (operation 1400). In other words, the
software agent obtains a complete collection of all software
applications and their configurations and provides the manifest to
the service provider system. In one particular implementation, a
software manifest monitor 1355, which is coupled to the software
agent 1350, performs this function. The software manifest monitor
1355 monitors, whether periodically, intermittently or otherwise,
changes to the client's software manifest. As changes are made to
client's system the software manifest monitor 1355 records them.
Hence, when a request for the client's software manifest is made by
the software agent 1350, the software manifest monitor 1355
compiles the manifest and transmits it to the service provider, via
the software agent 1350.
[0118] Once the software manifest and installation requested is
received by the service provider (operation 1400), the route
manager 1305 analyzes the client's software manifest and creates a
dependency route overlay on the dependency map (operation 1410). A
dependency route overlay 1320 is a structural overlay placed on the
dependency map 1310, including each software element in the
client's manifest. Hence, the installation overlay is initially a
snapshot of the elements of each software application installed on
the client's computing system. In order to carry out this service,
the route manager 1305 begins with the first software element in
the manifest and searches the dependency map 1310 for the same
element. Once found, the element is flagged as the start of the
dependency route overlay 1320. The route manager 1305 continues
this process through each software element in the manifest until
they are all flagged in the dependency map 1310 and placed into the
dependency route overlay. Next, the route manager 1305 assesses the
declared dependencies between each of the software elements in the
manifest and recreates these dependencies in the dependency route
overlay. Just as dependencies between elements are used to define a
software boundary overlay 1315, dependencies between software
elements in a dependency route overlay 1320 are also used to define
the relationship of each element that comprises the manifest of the
client's computing system. Lastly, the route manager 1305 defines a
relationship (draws a line) between each software element in the
client's manifest. The line will only connect between two elements
by way of the dependency that connects them. Hence, the line will
not connect between two software elements if there wasn't a
dependency that already connected them.
[0119] Once the route manager 1305 completes the dependency route
overlay over the dependency map 1310, a start point calculator 1325
determines the start point of the client's dependency route overlay
(operation 1420). The start point is the current state of the
client's software manifest before any additional changes are made
to it. At this point, the current state (i.e., start point) of the
client's environment is recorded in a persistent store 1330 (e.g.,
data warehouse) and time stamped for future reference (operation
1430). For example, the timestamp can be later used to
intelligently back out of a future install, which is further
described in Section VI. Next, an end point calculator 1335 is used
to calculate an end point based on the client's install request
(operation 1440). In one example, the state of the client system
start point is known to run Apache 4.0 on Solaris 9.0. Whereas, the
end point of the client's system would be the fastest version of
Apache 5.5 running on Solaris 9.0. Therefore, the difference
between the start point and the end point is a compilation of the
software elements that must be added and removed to transform the
client system from its current state of software elements (i.e.,
start point) to its new collection of software elements (i.e., end
point.) The software elements used to get the client system from
the start point to the end point is known as a route calculation
overlay, which will be described below.
[0120] In one particular embodiment, each time the client wishes to
add or remove software from their system, the start point is
recalculated based on the current software manifest and not assumed
from a previously stored start point located in the persistent
store 1330. This is due to the possibility of software drift.
Software drift occurs when the current state of a computer's
manifest changes due to the manual removal of certain services or
files on the computer. This usually occurs when a system
administrator wishes to remove certain portions of code from an
application or OS. For example, the client system may contain ksh,
csh, tsh as part of its Unix OS scripting inventory. In order to
reduce the chance that someone will use ksh, a system administrator
may remove ksh from the OS. This change would not be known by the
previous start point. Hence, the route manager 1305 and start point
calculator 1325 conducts a new analysis of the client manifest and
creates a new dependency route overlay 1320 and start point each
time the client wishes to make a change to their system.
[0121] Once the start point and end point have been determined by
the respective calculators, the overlays are passed to a route
calculator 1340 that plots a complete route between the start and
end point (operation 1450). In one embodiment, there are numerous
routes that exist between the start point and end point. This is
why confidence factors and weighting of dependencies are valuable.
One function of the route calculator 1340 is to compute the total
dependency confidence value across a route and declare its
confidence factor. For example, there may be 23 possible routes
between the start point and end point. Beginning with the first
route, the route calculator will summarize the dependency
confidence factors across each dependency in the route. The route
calculator 1340 uses calculations to arrive at a summarized
confidence factor of the entire route. In one embodiment, the
dependency route confidence factor is determined by summarizing the
confidence factor between each dependency and dividing it by the
total number of dependencies.
[0122] A list of routes may then be presented to the client with
the route having the highest level of calculated confidence being
presented first (operation 1460). Lastly, the system administrator
selects the route they wish to use. In another embodiment, the
client system may be automatically configured to trust the route
with the highest level of confidence and install the solution
automatically.
[0123] FIG. 15 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a
dependency route overlay. FIG. 15 shows a plurality of software
elements 1530 that comprise an example of a dependency map 1500.
The bounds of the dependency map 1500 are shown by the line
encompassing the software elements 1530. Each software element 1530
has at least one dependency upon another software element. The
dependencies 1520 are shown as straight lines that connect two
software elements 1530. A dependency route overlay 1510 is also
shown. In one example, the dependency route overlay 1510 is a path
drawn around a plurality of software elements 1530 needed to bring
a client computing system from its current state to the state it
would be in after the requested installation. This example
illustrates a single dependency route overlay 1510. However, a
dependency map 1500 would likely comprise a plurality of dependency
route overlays 1510, each representing different dependency routes
for installing a software application.
[0124] In a particular implementation, automated installation
policies may be put into place on a client computing system. Such
policies give system administrators complete control over all
installation options. On the other hand, installation policies can
learn, over time, an administrator's preferences and desired level
of manual interaction. One purpose of such installation policy is
to allow for as much automation, regarding installation decisions,
as possible.
[0125] Policy may be defined within each software application's
dependency route and/or within each client system's software agent.
In one example, each dependency route includes a statically defined
policy. The policy may state that upon completion of the
installation, perform an automatic reboot of the system. The policy
definition may also comprise policy information about user
preferences. For example, the policy may ask the user's permission
to reboot, or proceed automatically. Over time, the default policy
definitions attached to each dependency route may change. As
dependency routes are installed, the software agent from each
client returns success or failure information regarding the
individual install of the software application. The dependency map
may consider these statistics when determine policy definitions.
For example, a policy definition may state that user permission is
requested for each installation step. Over time, the installation
success rate of this route may increase dramatically. As a result,
the default policy definition of this route may change to "proceed
automatically" instead of requesting user permission to continue.
Such a change is the result of increased confidence in the
installation success of the dependency route.
[0126] By implementing such an approach, the amount of manual
involvement by system administrator may decrease. If a dependency
route has a high confidence factor, due to the number of previously
successful installs, the route may be configured with a policy to
automatically implement the route which does not involve the
administrator. On the other hand, if a dependency route has
unsuccessful installations, a default policy that involves the
administrator would decrease the likelihood that the install may
fail. In one embodiment, a threshold confidence factor along with
the number of installation attempts may be used to determine the
level of automation within a route's installation policy. For
example, a dependency route that has been installed 800 times with
a confidence factor of 87% may have an installation policy with
increased automation. Whereas, a dependency route that was
installed 4 times with a confidence factor of 50% may have an
installation policy with reduced automation.
[0127] The second place that user policy is defined is in the
software agent of each client system. In one embodiment, the
default policy stored in the software agent may override the
default policy tied to a specific dependency route. In other
embodiments, a combination of the dependency route policy and the
software agent policy may be combined to arrive at a hybrid policy
definition. For example, if a new dependency route without previous
installation history is chosen, then the default policy of the
dependency route may be combined with the default policy of the
software agent. If the software agent's policy allows for automated
installation in all cases, then the new route will be installed
regardless of its confidence factor. In another example, a software
agent's default policy may request administrative interaction
regardless of the confidence factor of the chosen dependency route.
Even if the chosen dependency route has 1500 installs with a
confidence factor of 98%, the administrator would still be
requested to interact during the installation.
[0128] When a client requests a software application to be
installed on a system, optimization of the system prior to
installation is another consideration. A client may request that
Apache 5.5 be installed in one of many ways. Although the software
boundary overlay of Apache 5.5 does not change, the dependency
route plotted through this overlay may change depending of the
installation choice made by the customer. For example, the system
administrator may wish to install Apache 5.5 with a configuration
including: 1) the least number of software elements required; 2)
the least disk space needed; 3) the least errors reported; or 4)
the latest security updates. Each one of the options or combination
of options may result in a slightly different dependency route. In
order to analyze and plot a dependency route, the route manager
will also consider the current state of the client's system. As
stated above, the client's software agent will upload the client's
current software manifest to the route manager for analysis.
[0129] In one embodiment, it is possible that the current state of
the client's computing system will require some changes in order to
install the new application based on the preferences chosen by the
system administrator. For example, the client's computing system
may contain no software other than a fresh installation of the
Solaris 9.0 OS. If the administrator wishes to install the most
stable version of Apache web server, a number of changes or
optimizations to the current client system may be required. For
example, in order to install the most stable version of Apache,
Solaris may need to be upgraded from version 9.0 to version 9.1
(release B). Such a change may be unacceptable to the
administrator, as they may plan on installing an additional
application that requires Solaris 9.0.
[0130] When a dependency route is being calculated by the route
manager, as discussed in regards to FIG. 14, any required changes
to the existing client's software configuration or versions will be
provided to the system administrator. Assuming the changes are
acceptable to the administrator, the software agent will apply
these changes to the client's system before installation of the new
software application begins. If the changes are not accepted, a
different installation and/or preferences must be redefined such as
installing the most stable version of Apache that works on Solaris
9.0.
[0131] In order to provide an accurate installation dependency
route to a client, it may be necessary to provide multiple
iterations of the route to the client. The reason for multiple
iterations is due to the potential of the first route being
incomplete or inaccurate. Hence, additional routes may be needed,
with each iteration improving on the errors discovered in the
previous route.
[0132] FIG. 16 is a flow diagram illustrating one method involved
in presenting an accurate dependency route to a client computing
system. As previously described, when the route manager receives an
initial software installation request from a client device, the
relevant portion of the client software manifest is also submitted
to the route manager (operation 1600). In a particular
implementation, less than the entire software manifest is
sufficient for the route manager and other components to generate a
dependency route. The software agent running on the client
determines which portions of the software manifest are relevant to
the installation request and only transmits those portions. Logic
is built into the software agent that permits the agent to analyze
the software manifest and the installation request and resolve
which portions of the manifest are likely needed by the service
provider in creating the dependency route based on the installation
request. If the portion of the manifest sent is insufficient,
additional portion may be transmitted as needed. Providing only a
portion of the manifest reduces the amount of information being
communicated to and analyzed by the route manager.
[0133] The route manager may next calculate a complete dependency.
Alternatively, the route manager may calculate a rapid dependency
route through the dependency map based on the software elements
needed to complete the installation (operation 1610). A rapid
dependency route describes the first route that is calculated based
on a first pass through the dependency map. This route may not be
relevant to any previous routes or may not take advantage of
confidence factors, etc.; thus it may not be the most optimal
route. However, the rapid dependency route is the easiest to
calculate since it is based on absolute dependencies. In other
words, the calculated route only includes dependencies between
elements that will always exists, such that a confidence factor is
ineffectual, as the dependencies are not optional.
[0134] In one embodiment, the dependency route is packaged as an
XML file and transmitted to the software agent on the client
(operation 1620). This initially transmitted dependency route is
created in response to the client request, and provides the client
with an immediate response to their installation request based on
the portion of the software manifest transmitted by the software
agent. In this first "rapid" iteration of the dependency route, the
route manager is more concerned with providing an immediate
response to the client than providing a completely accurate
dependency route which takes more time. Such an approach provides
real-time feedback to the system administrator, with accuracy
refinement coming after the system administrator chooses a route.
As mentioned above, it is possible to set forth an implementation
that does not employ "rapid" dependency route calculation, but
rather transmits a more complete route.
[0135] Once the system administrator approves the dependency route,
the software agent on the client begins processing the dependency
route (operation 1630). If there are no errors or problems with the
dependency route, then the installation will complete successfully
(operation 1650). However, it is possible that the partially
provided software manifest is incomplete or not granular enough for
complete determination of the dependency route. In such an
instance, the route provided by the route manager may become
invalid as the installation progresses. The software agent handles
this issue by using a soft reference style connection to an element
that does not exist in the current dependency route, but is known
to exist. The software agent transparently initiates a web services
request back to the service provider and requests a reroute through
the dependency map (operation 1640) based on the declared soft
reference. The route manager provides the reroute information back
to the software agent on the client (operation 1660), allowing the
agent to continue installation. In one embodiment, the software
agent comprises both a main logic layer and a business logic layer.
The main logic layer is responsible for communication with the
service provider, as well as receiving dependency route
information. The business logic layer is unaware of the processing
of the main logic layer. The reroute request is handled by the
software agent's main logic layer. Therefore, the business logic
layer is unaware of the network reroute. In other words, the
business logic layer receives continuous instructions from the main
logic layer to proceed with the installation. If a change in the
instructions, due to a network reroute, occurs at the main logic
layer, the business logic layer is unaware of these changes and
continues to receive instructions as if nothing has changed. Hence,
the business layer of the software agent continues with the
installation based on the reroute (operation 1670) without
knowledge of underlying changes that may occur. The installation
continues until completion (operation 1650).
[0136] In order to perform a reroute, a number of parameters are
considered by the route manager. In a first parameter, the route
manager determines whether specific software modules are included
as new in the installation request. This is often the case as these
modules may not be explicitly called out in the manifest. For
example, a requested patch (Patch A) introduces a new library that
has a side effect. Further, patch A is introduced to fix a security
hole in an OS. Patch A may also include a new version of libSocket.
Additional applications may use libSocket and depend upon it based
on its current version. The new version of libSocket may have new
changes in the functional profile of libSocket, such that the
applications that relied on the previous version may stop operating
correctly. In order to address such an issue, the route manager
will create a reroute to include all of the updated applications
based on the new version of libSocket.
[0137] A second parameter that may be considered by the route
manager when performing a reroute is a historical request. As
previously stated, the dependency map maintains historically
successful installation routes. If a client requests an
installation that matches one of these historical routes, the
reroute will include this additional information which may reduce
the information included in the re-request. This acts as a
predictive model for the routing system by utilizing historically
successful route information when possible.
[0138] The third and last parameter that may be considered by the
route manager during rerouting is a declared dependency in the
software installed on the client system that is not included in the
dependency map. This will usually occur for custom software
packages that are already installed on the client system yet are
unknown to the dependency map.
[0139] In order for a software agent to install a software
application based on a given dependency route, the portion (i.e.,
actual files) of the dependency map that encompasses the route is
needed by the software agent. It is possible to host some or all of
the files of the dependency map on each client system. However, the
size of the map could be so large that local storage would be
impractical. Accordingly, in one implementation, the service
provider is configured to stream or otherwise transmit the relevant
portions of the dependency map to the client system.
[0140] Further problems may arise due to potentially unrecognized
dependencies on the client system that are not included in the
software manifest. In result, the initial portion of the dependency
map streamed to the client may be incomplete or inaccurate based on
unrecognized dependencies in the software manifest that was
communicated to the service provider. As previously stated, an
unrecognized dependency can occur if a system administrator
manually removes files from the system. For example, the software
agent may not be aware of such manual changes, hence the software
manifest is not properly updated with such changes. This results in
a differences between the client manifest and the actual files on
the client system. As such, it is possible that the actual
dependency route may need to change once the installation begins.
Therefore, in one particular implementation, the relevant portions
of the dependency map are divided into multiple pieces and
transmitted in phases.
[0141] In an example, once the client submits the initial install
request, that request is sent back to the service provider where
the request is analyzed. The initial portion of the dependency map,
which may involve root software elements relevant to the request,
is returned and processed for install by the software agent. This
is the first phase of the installation, which involves installation
of the root software application. Next, the total route length is
calculated. The route length is defined as the number of individual
software elements that comprise the dependency route. Based on the
confidence factors of each dependency in the route, the route is
calculated at specific steps along the way such that the entire
path may not always be known from the start. In other words, as the
dependencies between each element in the route are calculated with
a summarized confidence factor, the route may change if the
confidence factor drops below a threshold. As long as the
summarized confidence factor of the dependencies maintain above the
threshold, the route will continue without deviation.
[0142] In another embodiment, a route may be recalculated if the
software elements already installed on the client require the route
to be changed. Such a situation arises when software is present on
the client's system, yet is not explicitly declared by the software
manifest. An example might be if a library that is versioned and
has a dependency present based on a symbolic link. If route
calculation drives the software agent to an unresolved software
dependency on the local dependency map, hosted by the client, a
request will be sent to the service provider causing calculation of
an additional segment of the dependency map, which is subsequently
streamed to the client. This route calculation is based on the
route path that has been recalculated by the software agent on the
client. The service provider follows the route path and sends back
the relevant part of the dependency map to the client. The client
then continues its installation until completion. This
recalculation can occur many times and is highly related to the
size and complexity of the installation job that is requested by
the client.
[0143] Aspects of the present invention may further involve the
inclusion of confidence factors with a dependency route provided to
a client from the service provider. As previously described, the
service provider often transmits multiple dependency routes to the
client. Each of the routes may have a confidence factor. These
confidence factors provide a system administrator with a weighted
scale of which route will likely result in a successful
installation. Confidence factors for each dependency route can
change based on a variety of factors. As installations are
attempted on client devices based on a given dependency route, the
service provider system collects the successes or failures of the
installations. This collected data is provided to the service
provider system as feedback from the software agents based on each
installation in one particular embodiment. As a specific dependency
route results in more successful installs, its confidence factor
increases. In contrast, if a dependency route results in failure,
its confidence factor is diminished. In the end, the best choice
for the client will be provided by understanding successful
installations that have previously occurred and using this
information to provide the best solution.
[0144] Confidence factors explicitly apply to dependencies between
individual software elements. Whereas, a confidence factor of an
installation route may be implicitly represented based on the
average of the confidence factors for each dependency within the
route. For example, if a dependency route has three dependencies
with confidence factors of 100%, 65% and 75%, the average
confidence factor of the dependency route is 80%. The value of each
confidence factor may change over time. As more installations are
performed and feedback received from software agents, the
confidence factor of each dependency between two software elements
becomes more valuable. For example, if feedback from a particular
installation route is positive (e.g., successfully installed), the
confidence factor for each dependency in the route is increased
accordingly. In result, the implicit confidence factor of the
installation route is also increased, based on the average of the
individual confidence factors from the dependencies that represent
the route. As such, the more installations that have provided
feedback on a dependency route, the more valuable the confidence
factor of each dependency within the route becomes. In an example,
dependency route A consists of 1000 dependencies with an average
confidence factor for the dependencies of 100%, based on three
installations. Dependency route B consists of 1000 dependencies
with an average confidence factor for the dependencies of 78% based
on 450 installations. The averaged confidence factor of dependency
route B may be more valuable that dependency route A based on the
frequent use of dependency route B.
[0145] In order to build a confidence factor for an individual
dependency or an entire dependency route, the service provider may
receive feedback from software agents during client installations.
In one particular arrangement the software agent is configured to
monitor the installation for errors. During an installation, any
errors detected by the software agent are sent to the service
provider hosting the dependency map. The software agent may send
the actual error string, the software element that caused the error
and the current location within the route where the error occurred.
To begin analysis of the errors, the service provider will launch
an analysis service to begin parsing the error string. The analysis
service identifies references to any files that may have already
been installed on the client system prior to the installation. This
may point to problems with pre-installed files. For example, an
existing application may have already experienced runtime errors.
Hence, the previous state of the client system may already
experience problems.
[0146] Further, the analysis service also identifies references to
any known installation problems such a disk space, file system
errors or other operating environment problems. As such, the
software agent, with the assistance of the analysis service,
constantly monitors the client system for failures, as well as
other issues such as disk space utilization and speed of installed
applications, which are reported back to and included as features
of individual software elements and/or installation routes.
Software elements and routes also have other features such as a
version number of the related software file, security update
status, and the like. In one embodiment, the agent monitors file
system utilization and the system error log. When the agent detects
any errors, the error is correlated to specific files on the client
system. The software agent can then communicate this error back to
the service provider as an error of a dependency between two
software elements.
[0147] Once an error in an individual dependency has been addressed
by the analysis service, the dependency is flagged with the error
as well as the reason, if known. This error and its reason are
stored as attributes of the dependency. The confidence factor of
the dependency is now reduced due to the new error. In one
embodiment, the confidence factor is calculated by taking the
number of installations involving the dependency divided by the
number of successful installations to generate a new confidence
value.
[0148] As previously described, in one particular arrangement, in
order for a software agent to install a software application on a
client system, a portion of the dependency map is streamed to the
software agent along with a manifest of each software element to be
installed. In one embodiment, the software agent may perform a
pre-installation verification check to verify that the dependency
route chosen will install without errors. However, such a check is
not mandatory. Further, a threshold confidence factor may be
implemented such that a pre-installation verification is only
triggered if the confidence factor falls below the threshold. For
example, the software agent may be configured to only perform the
pre-installation verification if the confidence factor of the
chosen dependency route is below 65%. Therefore, a pre-installation
verification would not occur on a dependency route with a 98%
confidence factor as its chance for success is very high. The
threshold may nonetheless be set at any value desired by a system
administrator at either the computer-specific level or applying
enterprise-wide.
[0149] Even with a reasonably high confidence factor, it is still
possible that an installation based on a chosen dependency route
may fail. FIG. 17 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for
performing a pre-installation verification. A pre-installation
verification may reduce the opportunity for installation-time
errors by illuminating such errors during the validation process.
In order to perform a pre-installation verification, the software
agent receives the relevant portion of the dependency map needed
for installation, which includes a manifest that lists each
software file needed for installation (operation 1700). Once the
dependency map has been received, the software agent scans the
manifest of the dependency route to verify that all the files and
symbol-based dependencies needed by the installation presently
exist on the client system (operation 1710). As described above,
symbol-based dependencies are dependencies declared within the
symbol table of each executable file. If a missing dependency or
software file is discovered during the verification check, the
software agent requests the missing file from the dependency map
(operation 1720). The dependency map locates and transmits the file
back to the software agent (operation 1730). Once the missing file
is received, the verification continues until each file and
dependency has been determined to reside on the client system.
[0150] FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating another embodiment
of the architectural components of a dependency route calculator
that additionally stores information about successfully installed
routes. In order to identify successfully installed routes in the
dependency map, a third dependency map overlay is provided, known
as a route calculation overlay 1810. This type of overlay
represents each dependency route used to install or remove any
software applications managed by the dependency map. In order to
track the success or failure of dependency routes, the software
agents 1350 provide results of the installation including whether
the installation was successful and if not where the installation
failed. In one embodiment a software installation monitor 1830 is
responsible for monitoring a software installation. If any errors
or warnings are detected by the installation monitor 1830, the
information is passed to the software agent, who in turn relays the
error to the service provider. As previously described, a
communication feedback loop 1303 may exist between the software
agent 1350 that performs the installation and the route manager
1305. Software installation or removal is monitored by the software
agent 1350. If a dependency route is successfully (or
unsuccessfully) installed or removed, the success (or lack thereof)
is transmitted back to the route manager 1305. If the dependency
route already existed as a route calculation overlay, than the
confidence factor of that overlay is updated with the success
received from the software agent 1350. An attribute of the route
calculation overlay tracks the total number of successful and
unsuccessful installations. This attribute is then incremented
based on the success of the installation.
[0151] Another attribute of the route calculation overlay stores a
timestamp of each installation attempt. This attribute allows for
queries to be made as to how many successful or unsuccessful
installs have occurred as well as the date and time of each
install. On the other hand, if the specific dependency route did
not exist, the route manager 1305 creates an overlay of the
dependency route and provides an initial confidence factor to the
overlay and a first value in the timestamp attribute. In one
embodiment, the initial confidence factor is set to zero, as no
data has been provided.
[0152] When the dependency map 1310 is initially created, no route
calculation overlays exist. As installations occur, calculation
route overlays are created. Over time, the number of overlays and
their timestamp attributes will increase. However, it is likely
that after a certain period of time, the number of unique route
overlays may stabilize after the initial increase, as there are a
limited number of installation paths available.
[0153] As stated above, the route manager 1305 considers the start
point and end point of the client when building a dependency route
for the client. The route manager 1305 searches the route
calculation overlay 1810 for all possible routes along with their
corresponding confidence factor. In one embodiment, it is possible
that a route overlay may not exist that would include each software
element needed to get the client from their start point to their
end point. In such a circumstance, some level of deviation between
the start point and end point may be allowed such that the
finalized dependency route is slightly modified based on the
differential between the start point and end point. In such an
embodiment, it may be preferable to provide a slightly deviated
route overlay that has been successfully installed rather than a
completely customized overlay that has never been installed. Once
all the dependency routes are calculated by the route manager 1305
they are passed to a route matcher 1825 which attempts to find
exact matches in the route overlay followed by a degrading analysis
to find nearest matches. In one embodiment a 10% deviation (i.e.,
the number of different software elements between the preferred
route and the deviated route is 10% or less) is acceptable. For
example, if the preferred route has 1000 elements and the deviated
route has 980 elements of which 910 of the elements are the same,
the deviated route would fall within 10% deviation.
[0154] The nearest matched routes are then analyzed around the
start and end points to see how important the deviation is and if
it can be legitimately corrected. Based on the possibility of a
deviation, the confidence factor for a given route may also change.
In one embodiment, the route manager 1305 may calculate the overall
confidence factor based on the following equation: Route
confidence=(0.1(1+Number of times route already used)*base
dependency confidence calculation of route)/dependency confidence
of any deviation from route. The above equation may promote the
continued reuse of a route that has been successfully installed and
reflects that the more use it has the less the risk the deviation
becomes.
[0155] One consideration to be addressed by a service provider
hosting a dependency map is the physical storage requirements for
hosting the dependency map and all its software applications. One
approach to storing this data is a software warehouse. Large
amounts of disk space may be needed to store the dependency map
data. For example, a single software application may require
multiple gigabytes of storage space. Hence, a software warehouse
storing hundred of applications and OS could reach well into the
multiple terabyte range of storage space. Over time, the number of
software applications stored in a software warehouse may continue
to grow. Not only may the number of different applications increase
but the number of versions of each application may increase as
well. It is possible that the size and cost of storing all this
data may become prohibitive unless measures are taken to phase out
certain applications from the software warehouse based on differing
criteria and to only store current software.
[0156] One approach for determining whether to phase out software
or keep it as current, is to base the decision on the support of
the actual software vendor. If a given software vendor happened to
provide support for only the current and previous two versions of
their operating systems, then there would be little need for
continued hosting unsupported operating systems. Each software
vendor has their own rules on how far back they will support their
software versions. Hence, a vendor by vendor analysis may be used
to determine when software versions can be phased out of the
software warehouse.
[0157] Another approach for determining which software should be
flagged as current and which may be phased out is based on usage
patterns from customers (discussed as aging below). As previously
stated, each time a software element or route is used in an
installation, a timestamp is recorded of its use. These timestamps
may be used in determining the frequency by which the software
elements are accessed. An advantage to hosting software
applications at the software element level allows for added
flexibility to phase out portions of a software application, while
only maintaining the current portions. For example, Apache 5.5 may
have 10,000 software elements that comprise the entire software
boundary overlay. Of these 10,000 elements, actual dependency
routes may only include 5000 of the software elements over a
specified period of time. Therefore, it may be possible that the
unused software elements are no longer needed, and may thus be
phased out (removal from warehouse or otherwise as discussed
below).
[0158] FIG. 19 is a flow diagram illustrating operations involved
in determining which software elements to phase out (also referred
to as "aging"). An aging process controlled by the dependency map
periodically analyzes the map and the recent time stamps associated
with each software element (operation 1900). The aging process
analyzes each software element and determines the amount of recent
use and assigns the element a use factor (operation 1910). The use
factor is determined by the number of times the software element
was accessed over a pre-determined time period.
[0159] Next, the aging process analyzes the number of dependencies
connected to the software element and the confidence factor of each
dependency. Since dependencies have a confidence factor tied to
them, the confidence factor of each dependency is summed and an
average is drawn across all the dependencies for the element
(operation 1920). A pre-determined threshold value exists to
determine whether to age the software element (operation 1930). In
one arrangement, if either the use factor or total dependency
confidence factor fall below the threshold, the software element is
aged (operation 1940). In an example, the threshold value is 42%.
Software element A has been assigned a use factor of 47% based on
it use over the past 30 days. Element A also has three
dependencies, each having a confidence factor of 20%, 90% and 10%,
respectively. The average confidence factor of element A's
dependencies is 40%. Hence, the use factor of 47% is above the
predetermined threshold of 42%. However, the confidence factor of
40% falls below the threshold value, resulting in the software
element being aged. In another embodiment, a software element is
not aged unless both the use factor and the total dependency
confidence factor fall below the threshold value. The method
described above is merely an example of how software elements may
be aged. As such, additional methods may be used to determine which
software elements may be aged.
[0160] Once a software element reaches a certain age, it may be
removed from the dependency map, or otherwise identified as "aged".
In a first level of aging, a file represented by a software element
may be moved from the primary hard disks that comprise storage for
the software warehouse to a slower retrieval mechanism such as tape
drives or slower disk drives (e.g., slower seek times, RPMs, cache,
etc.) In this level, access to these elements are still possible,
but with reduced retrieval performance. In a second level of aging,
software elements that have not been referenced through dependency
routes are aged into an offline storage. The elements are no longer
maintained in the dependency map, however, a link to the elements
still exist. After 90 days, the reference from the dependency map
to the element is removed. In another approach, the file
represented by the software element is also removed from the
software warehouse. However, a log is maintained of previously
removed elements for future retrieval if needed.
[0161] The purpose of aging software elements and removing them
from the software warehouse is to reduce the exponential size of
the warehouse. As software applications are added to the dependency
map and the warehouse, the warehouse increases in size. As a
relational database grows in size, its performance diminishes. The
"aging" process permits the dependency map to continue to add
software applications and dependency routes, while maintaining
acceptable performance in the underlying warehouse that hosts the
software applications.
[0162] Another consideration for a service provider hosting a
dependency map is the division of software applications that occurs
across multiple vendors. It may be the case that a single service
provider will not host a dependency map and software warehouse for
all software applications across different vendors. Accordingly, in
one implementation, dependency maps from different vendors are
linked together. In one example, each software vendor, or other
party hosting a dependency map may have links to other dependency
maps, allowing a customer to access dependency routes across
multiple vendors.
[0163] In one arrangement, the linking of vendor specific or other
separate dependency maps provide a virtual dependency map. The
virtual dependency map is accessible by the software agent on each
client. The virtual dependency map is an accumulation of many
separate vendor maps. Each vendor dependency map knows the location
of every other vendor dependency map by way of one or more soft
references to the other vendor dependency maps. These references
are in effect dangling references, as discussed above, that will be
fulfilled when connected by dependencies from other dependency maps
based on a request made from a customer to install applications
that span two vendors. Hence, a plurality of individual
vendor-hosted dependency maps can be connected to each other when
needed.
[0164] In an example, a customer may wish to install Apache 5.5 on
Solaris 9.0. In this example, two different vendors supply the
software applications and host the dependency maps, thus two
different dependency maps are accessed. The software agent on the
customer's client system may query one dependency map for the
optimal dependency route for installing Solaris 9.0. Next, the
software agent on the client system identifies a soft reference to
the Apache dependency map. The software agent uses a lookup request
to obtain the uniform resource indicator (hereinafter "URI") of the
Apache dependency map that fulfills the soft reference. The two
separate maps are thus functionally combined to create a "virtual"
map for the purpose of providing a dependency route installing
Apache 5.5 on Solaris 9.0 of a target computer.
[0165] In anther embodiment, the use of soft references to connect
multiple dependency maps can be used in an opposite approach by
dividing a single large dependency map from an organization into
smaller and more manageable maps. Each dependency map would have a
soft reference allowing it to be connected to the other dependency
maps within the organization.
[0166] In one embodiment, each map could be divided across product
lines, vendors, or other division criteria.
V. Enriching the Dependency Map by Monitoring Software
Installations and Performance
[0167] As described in Section IV, dependency routes include
attributes that store additional information about a dependency
route. Such information includes the number of successful and
unsuccessful installations based on the route as well as timestamps
for each installation attempt. Tracking installation-time success
and failure is not the extent of the information that may be
associated with each route. In addition, tracking run-time failures
as well as performance data is also possible, besides other
information. In order to track this type of information, additional
modules may be coupled to the software management agent as shown in
FIG. 20. FIG. 20 is a block diagram illustrating another embodiment
of the architectural components of a software management agent that
tracks and analyzes information about run-time failures and
performance statistics of successfully installed routes. In this
embodiment, the software agent 1350 further includes one or more
software error detection modules 2010 and software performance
analysis modules 2020.
[0168] In one embodiment, run-time errors and execution analysis is
performed by the software error detection module 2010 which may
include two sub-modules; an event detector and a log file watcher.
The event detector is configured to detect problematic events in
the software that is being installed by the software agent. The
event detector may be configured to perform simple network
management protocol ("SNMP") sniffing, core or memory image dumps,
java stack detection, etc. By contrast, a log file watcher tracks
pre-determined log files looking for conventional textual entries
associated with system error logs or application specific error
logs.
[0169] The software error detection module 2010 is further
configured to receive input from the system administrator regarding
the type of errors to monitor and how to determine if such errors
should be flagged. Hence, each error detection module includes a
definition construct, defined by the system administrator,
describing the module's responsibilities. In the case of an event
detector, the definition construct describes which type of events
to monitor and whether a given event type should be defined as an
error. In the case of file log watcher, the definition construct
describes which type of log files to monitor and which type of log
events should be flagged as an error.
[0170] In one particular arrangement, there are individual software
error detection modules 2010 for each application on the client's
system. The software agent 1350 then uses these modules to watch
for errors that are associated with individual software
applications. As errors are detected by the individual software
error detection modules 2010, the software agent 1350 periodically
sends these errors and the client software manifest back to the
route manager 1305. The route manager is further tasked with
applying these errors to the dependency route or routes associated
with the error in question. The error is then computed into the
existing confidence factor, thereby reducing the factor to some
degree.
[0171] The tracking and analysis of performance data is similar to
tracking errors such that software performance analysis modules
2020 are deployed to monitor the performance of each software
application installed on the client's system. In one embodiment,
there may be only one software performance analysis module 2020
configured to monitor all the software applications. In another
embodiment, there may individual analysis modules 2020 for each
software application. The module is configured to define what type
of performance variables to monitor and for which software
applications. Such performance variables may include, but are not
limited to, the timeframe required to execute certain functions,
the number of processor clock cycles for performing a function,
etc. Once performance information is gathered by the analysis
module 2020, the information may be submitted to the route manager
1305 along with the dependency route used to install each software
application. In one embodiment, a performance rating may be applied
as an additional attribute to dependency routes. Once additional
performance information is submitted to the route manager, the
performance information may be averaged into the existing
performance rating.
[0172] Further, the performance rating of this route may be
compared to the performance ratings of additional routes. This
permits the route manager to order other dependency routes, with
the same software configuration, based on performance.
VI. Software Installation Simulation and Intelligent Software
De-Installation
[0173] Another feature of using a dependency map to create a
software dependency route is the possibility of simulating a
software installation. By understanding the precise state of a
start point, the exact installation effects of a request can be
simulated using a virtually provisioned operating system. Such a
simulation can allow system administrators to see the effect of the
installation with complete accuracy, yet without having to
physically install the software. There are many benefits to
simulating a software installation. For example, a requested
installation of a software application may generate a dependency
route with a low confidence factor. Accordingly, the administrator
may wish to test whether the install is likely to work in their
environment without having to install the software beforehand. In
another example, a returned dependency route may have little or no
confidence factor weighting tied to the route. This would be the
result of very few, if any, installations having been attempted
with the route. Running a simulation allows an administrator to
verify whether the installation will be successful.
[0174] FIG. 21 is a flow diagram illustrating the operations for
performing a software installation simulation. When an
administrator requests a simulation of a software application, they
would proceed by defining the request through the software agent on
the client system (operation 2100). The simulation request would be
similar to a traditional installation request in that the system
administrator would define the application to be installed and any
special configuration options they require. For example, they may
wish to simulate the affects of installing the latest version
Apache 5.5 on Solaris 9. Once the request is relayed to the
software agent, the request, its configuration parameters and the
current manifest of the client are transmitted to the route
calculator (operation 2110). The route calculator uses the
dependency map to back trace the software elements needed to
install the software based on the manifest (i.e., start point) of
the current software inventory on the client system (operation
2120). As with actual installations, the service provider will
often return multiple dependency routes that meet the criteria of
the simulation request. Each route may also comprise confidence
factors, allowing the administrator to decide which route to
simulate (operation 2130).
[0175] In order to simulate an installation of a software package a
mirror image of the client's system is needed. This includes a
virtually provisioned OS as well the other software applications
and services which resides on the client. By having a copy of the
client's manifest, the route calculator can create a virtual
dependency map of the client OS and the other applications and
services that exist on the client (operation 2140). Next, a
dependency route is created for the OS residing on the client
system (operation 2150). This route includes every software element
and dependency needed to rebuild the OS exactly as it exists on the
client system. Next, a separate dependency route is created for
each software application and service that exists on the client
system (operation 2160). Lastly, the simulated dependency route
selected by the administrator is provisioned. In one embodiment, a
plurality of dependency routes exist (e.g., one route for the OS
and one route for each software application on the client) that may
be joined together into one large route (operation 2170). It is
possible that joining two dependency routes together is
straightforward if all the dependencies between the two routes are
already realized. However, it is possible that an interim
dependency route may need to be created to connect unrealized
dependencies between the individual routes.
[0176] Once all the dependency routes have been joined, the
complete route is validated by verifying the dependencies of the
elements in the route and resolving any dependencies that are
incomplete (operation 2180). In one embodiment, this validation is
a step-by-step model that creates a stack of all the software
elements created and their dependencies. The stack is responsible
for storing the validation results. Upon completion of the
validation, verification is made that there are no dangling
references (operation 2190). However, if any dangling reference are
reported from the validation process, the dangling reference is
returned to the system administrator and the validation process
halts. Since a dangling reference is typically not permissible in
the installation of a software application, the simulation shows
that the simulated dependency route would not be installed
successfully.
[0177] One type of issue that a simulation may be unable to
recognize or fix is the possibility that some piece of software
needed for an installation is unavailable. In other words, it is
possible that the software manifest of a client system includes a
dependency that is unforeseen or unrecognized by the service
provider. Hence, this embodiment focuses on the need for on-the-fly
resolutions of problems in the installation phase that may not be
recognized during simulation or analysis of dependencies. As
previously stated, each client system contains a software manifest
that lists every software element on the client system. When a
client requests software to be installed, the client manifest is
uploaded to the route calculator by the software agent. Access to
the manifest permits the route calculator to determine the start
point of the client's system. If the client manifest is incorrect
for some reason, then the dependency route created by the route
calculator may cause installation-time errors.
[0178] Normally the items contained in the client manifest are
updated as software applications or services are installed or
deleted. For example, if a software service is deleted from the
client, each file that has been removed is reflected in the
manifest. Under most circumstances the manifest accurately reflects
the current state of the client system. However, a client manifest
may have inaccuracies for a number of reasons. One common situation
that may cause inaccuracies occurs when manual changes are made to
the client system by a system administrator. For example, a system
administrator may have Solaris 9 installed on the client. By
default, CoreLoginServices, a module of Solaris, is installed.
CoreLoginServices includes a number of individual login shells for
accessing a UNIX server. One of the login shells, sshd, is a secure
login shell. It is possible for a system administrator to manually
delete this shell and its associated files to prevent others from
accessing the server from this method. However, a manual deletion
of this shell would not show up in the client's manifest because
the manifest is only updated based on changes that occur through
the control of the software agent. Therefore, if an administrator
wishes to simulate an installation of Apache 5.5 on the client, the
uploaded manifest states that sshd exists on the client. In this
case, Apache 5.5 may have a dependency on sshd. During a
simulation, this discrepancy may not be found since the simulation
uses the client manifest to determine the software state of the
client. Since the manifest does not show sshd as missing, the
simulation will not find this potential problem. However, during an
actual installation the absence of sshd will likely cause
installation-time errors.
[0179] One method for alleviating this situation is to add an
additional installation validation thread to the software agent
running on the client. This thread is concurrently active during
installations occurring on the client. During an installation, this
validation thread acts as a background process to the software
agent running low level validation checks of each dependency in the
installation. Based on the above example, the validation thread
validates the integrity of each OS command (e.g., sshd) by
analyzing any potential log files created from the command being
executed. In other words, this thread is tasked with isolating any
dependency discrepancies that may occur during the installation
that have not been detected during the initial route creation or
installation simulation.
[0180] FIG. 22 is a flow diagram illustrating the operations for
validating an installation using a installation validation thread
as described above. The validation thread works by analyzing each
new software file that is being installed during a software
installation. After a software file is installed, the thread
identifies each dependency that exists in the dependency route for
the software element associated with the file (operation 2200). If
each dependency is accounted for (i.e., each software file that
depends upon the installed element are found to exist on the client
system), the associated element is found to be complete and date
stamped as an attribute to the element (operation 2210). On the
other hand, if a file is found to have a missing dependency (e.g.,
sshd) the validation thread requests a pause on the installation
(operation 2220). The installed file is then forcibly de-installed
(operation 2230) and a network request is sent to the installation
map to identify the missing software element (file) (operation
2240). The dependency map receives the request, locates the missing
element through a uniform resource locator ("URL") reference or
otherwise, and returns the missing element to the client (operation
2250). The software agent then reinstalls the software element as
well as the missing software element from the dependency (operation
2260). Once the validation thread re-validates the software element
and all its dependencies as being accounted for, the element is
time stamped for completeness and the main installation is unpaused
and continues (operation 2270). This process continues through the
entire installation until each individual software element and its
dependencies are validated and time stamped.
[0181] In one embodiment, user policy of a client system can be
configured to specify the level of validation to be performed by
the validation thread. In a minimal involvement, the system
administrator can specify that the validation thread simply verify
the existence of the files declared in the manifest. Such an
approach would be faster in its execution, but less thorough. For
example, this approach would not validate the dependencies that
exist between each software element, only that the software
elements exist. In an intermediate involvement, the administrator
can specify that the validation thread validate actual file
permissions for all files declared in the manifest. In higher level
of involvement, the validation thread can be specified to perform
analysis on the symbol tables for each executable in the dependency
route. As previously stated, the symbol table for each executable
file contains all the dependencies related to the executable file.
For example, the symbol table of the executable file called "Is"
may show that "Is" imports "PrtOut" which is a routine that allows
the printing of text on an output display. PrtOut actually exists
as a routine within a C library called libC. Therefore, analysis of
the symbol table for "Is" would show that "Is" depends upon libC to
operate successfully.
[0182] One of the benefits of simulating a software installation is
to determine whether an installation would be successful without
going through the actual installation process. However, there are
times when an installation is found to be successful yet there may
be reasons that an administrator may wish to back out of the
installation after it has been completed. Conventional approaches
to de-installing software are converging, in that they go forwards
in time trying to merge back to a state that resembles the
previously stored state of a system. This feature is also known as
check-pointing or convergent software rollback. In order to perform
such a rollback, an administrator must create a checkpoint before
an installation takes place. This checkpoint takes a snap shot of
the client's current software inventory and configuration. If the
administrator wishes to return to the checkpoint at some point in
the future, the system is actually moved forward by attempting to
change the system to conform to the previous configuration as
defined in the checkpoint. This often results in a mere
approximation of the former check-pointed system due to the way
conventional rollbacks are done at the package level and not the
file level.
[0183] Aspects of the present invention offer an approach of moving
backward in time to return a system to substantially the exact
previous state. In order to allow for such an approach, the
dependency map described above implements time tracking of each
change to a client system. In order to implement time tracking of
manifest changes an additional manifest is created and stored on
the client when an installation is performed on the client. This
additional manifest includes all of the dependency routes that were
used to install all software applications on the client. This
additional manifest further includes a timestamp for each
dependency route used to install software. FIG. 23 is a flow
diagram illustrating the operations for returning a computing
system to a previous state. When a snapshot is requested for a
client system, all of the dependencies on the client are traced
back through the dependency map and the additional client manifest
(operation 2300). This allows for a complete manifest to be
created. The time-stamped information within the complete manifest
allows for an accurate assessment of the routes that were used to
create them.
[0184] At some point in the future when the client requests the
system to be returned to the previous state represented by the
snapshot, the software agent on the client recovers the new
manifest and transmits it to the service provider (operation 2310).
This manifest lists all the root software elements, the
dependencies associated with each root software element, as well as
a the root time dependency routes associates with the root software
elements. As previously described, a root software element is an
element that does not depend upon any other elements. Once the
manifest is received, the service provider analyzes the historical
data stored within the manifest and compares it to the dependency
map to assess exactly what software elements and versions were
installed at the time of the checkpoint (operation 2320). Upon
completion, an accurate assessment of the software load at the time
of the checkpoint is compiled and sent back to the software agent
on the client (operation 2330). The software agent then compares
the previous software load against the current software load and
compiles a list of all the differences (operation 2340). These
differences are then sent back to the service provider where the
dependency map is used to assess what software needs to be
de-installed and in what order to accurately return the client
system to its previous state (operation 2350). Since the dependency
map stores the previously installed software for the client, it is
possible to properly assess which software elements need to be
installed or de-installed. In other words, a dependency route is
being constructed where the start point is the current software
manifest of the client and the end point is the manifest at the
time of the snapshot. Hence, the route contains all the software
elements that need to be installed and de-installed to get the
client from its start point to its end point. Without such
historically collected information, such a de-installation approach
as described would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
[0185] The service provider also uses the time stamped dependency
routes from the additional client manifest to understand the
differences. These time-stamped dependency routes can be broken
down into smaller routes and the differences isolated. Once the
differences are understood, metadata stored in each root software
element and their dependencies are used to create de-installation
and re-installation instructions (operation 2360). Lastly, the
instructions are returned to the software agent on the client who
carries them out line by line (operation 2370). Once completed, the
client system is returned to substantially its exact state at the
time the snapshot was created.
[0186] System administrators are often seeking ways to improve the
performance of their systems. Aspects of the present invention
permit existing software configurations on client systems to be
analyzed by the service provider to determine if changes could be
made increase its performance or remove unneeded software elements.
In order for a client system to be analyzed for possible
performance increases, the client manifest is transmitted to the
service provider.
[0187] In one embodiment, an additional attribute stores with a
dependency route is performance statistics. The software agent
installed on each client may monitor the run-time performance of an
installation, based on a specific dependency route, and communicate
this performance information to the service provider. The
performance data is then stored with the dependency route. As
additional performance information is received from additional
clients, the performance rating of the route is changed. If changes
to a configuration are detected by the route manager that may
increase performance, a list of such changes may be complied by the
service provider and streamed to the software agent in the form of
dependency routes that would install and de-install software
elements as needed to change the installation of the software
application to match the software elements that comprise the
selected dependency route. The service provider could also provide
performance information to the system administrator as a reason to
perform the suggested changes. Further, such metrics could be used
to give reasons why an updated version of an already installed
application would be beneficial, resulting in additional revenue
for the vendor or service provider. Once changes have been streamed
to the client, they can be implemented by the software agent.
[0188] In another embodiment, the service provider could further
analyze the client manifest to determine if there any installed
software elements on the client that are not needed for the current
configuration. If such elements are discovered, the service
provider could transmit a list of the elements that may be
de-installed along with a dependency route that would de-install
these elements.
software application to match the software elements that comprise
the selected dependency route. The service provider could also
provide performance information to the system administrator as a
reason to perform the suggested changes. Further, such metrics
could be used to give reasons why an updated version of an already
installed application would be beneficial, resulting in additional
revenue for the vendor or service provider. Once changes have been
streamed to the client, they can be implemented by the software
agent.
[0189] In another embodiment, the service provider could further
analyze the client manifest to determine if there any installed
software elements on the client that are not needed for the current
configuration. If such elements are discovered, the service
provider could transmit a list of the elements that may be
de-installed along with a dependency route that would de-install
these elements.
[0190] Another solution available to system administrators through
the use of dependency maps and dependency routes is server software
duplication. It is common for a system administrator to
substantially duplicate a software configuration across many
servers. An example would be a large website that has a large
amount of Internet traffic. Conventionally, in order for the
website to manage the high traffic volume, a plurality of servers
and a load balancer are used. Each server would comprise identical
or substantially identical software configurations so that someone
browsing the website hosted by the servers would see the same
website no matter which server they were directed to by the load
balancer. In any arrangement, it is possible for two servers to
include the same functional software arrangements, but nonetheless
differ by having different device drivers, different network
connection drivers, etc., when different hardware or network
connections are associated with the servers.
[0191] Conventionally, in order for a system administrator to
configure multiple servers with the same software a common set of
software distributions are created. The administrator would then
use this distribution set to copy all the software onto each
server. One problem with this approach is the inability to track or
fix deviations or performance enhancements at the software element
level, as the software would have been installed by the
conventional package approach as described in the background
section of the present application. In order to make changes to an
existing software configuration the administrator would need to
make such changes manually on the first server and then duplicate
this effort across every other server comprising the same
configuration. Depending on the number of duplicate servers, this
task may be extremely time consuming as well as prone to human
error.
[0192] In accordance with aspects of the present invention, by
using dependency maps and dependency routes, a solution for
providing duplicate or substantially duplicate software manifests
and configurations across multiple servers is possible. One method
for duplicating software across multiple servers is illustrated in
FIGS. 24A and 24B. First, a system administrator makes a request to
the service provider to make a duplicate configuration on a target
server from the current configuration on a source server (operation
2400). The request is uploaded to the service provider from the
software agent on the source server. As with all installation
requests the software manifest of the source server is also
uploaded to and received by the service provider (operation 2405).
Once the request and manifest is received, the route calculator
attempts to locate a dependency route that matches the installation
manifest for the source server (operation 2410). In order for this
to occur, a software agent is preferably installed at the source
server when it is first brought online. Otherwise, it is difficult
for the manifest to accurately reflect the current and historical
software load of the source server since a software agent tracks
changes to a manifest as the changes occur.
[0193] If an exact dependency route is not found or if the software
agent was not installed for the lifetime of the source server, then
a dependency route is calculated based on the currently supplied
manifest. As with a normal installation request, it is common for a
number of dependency routes to be presented, with each route
including a confidence factor based on the number of previously
successful installations using the same route (operation 2415).
Upon confirmation of a preferred route, the service provider
streams the route to the software agent on the source server
(operation 2420). As with any dependency route for installing a
software application, the route will include every single
dependency on other software elements needed to install the
application. For example, when installing Apache 5.5 using
dependency route Y, there may be 1200 software elements that the
route depends upon. Therefore, all of these software elements
should either exist on the client or be installed before Apache 5.5
is installed.
[0194] Once the dependency route is streamed to the software agent
on the source server, the software agent will analyze the
dependency route and match it to the current software load on the
source server (operation 2425). If there are any differences
between the software load of the source server and the dependencies
required by the dependency route, which is likely, the software
agent will remove and install whatever software elements are
necessary to ensure that the route accurately reflects the software
load of the source server (operation 2430). The purpose of matching
the source server's software load with all the software elements
and dependencies from the chosen dependency route is to ensure that
the target server will end up with a substantial identical software
load as the source server once the target installs the dependency
route.
[0195] Once the source server's software load and the dependency
route are equal, the target server is assessed. Depending on
whether the target server has a software agent installed, two
different installation paths would be followed. If the target
server does not have a software agent installed, a minimal OS is
installed on the target which includes a software agent (operation
2435). In one embodiment, Bar Metal Provisioning is used as
previously described. In this embodiment, a bare OS, along with a
software monitoring agent, is provisioned onto the hardware
machine, erasing any previously installed OS or applications.
[0196] Once the target server includes a software agent, or if it
already had one, the dependency route is streamed to the target
server (operation 2440). The software agent scans the current
software manifest on the target server and creates a
de-installation list of every software element that is not part of
the dependency route (operation 2445). Next, the software agent
analyzes the file manifest of each software element in the
de-installation list and performs a file-level dependency check on
each software element to ensure there are no files that are created
at runtime but are not under the control of the software elements
manifest (operation 2450). An example of such a file may be
system-level or application-level configuration files. If any such
runtime created files are found, they are flagged in a separate
post de-installation list. Once assessed, all the software elements
and the de-installation list are checked for additional
dependencies which are then added to the post de-installation list
(operation 2455). After the software elements and runtime files are
deleted, the software load on the target server should not have any
additional software elements that are not part of the dependency
map. Hence, the software agent only has to add software elements
from the dependency map and not delete anything. At this point, the
software agent carries out the installation as specified in the
dependency map, resulting in a mirror image software load of the
source server (operation 2260).
[0197] Another advantage of managing software with a service
provider model is the ability to fine tune software configurations
that are currently installed on a client system. As with all
software applications, patches, bug fixes or new versions are
continuously released by vendors. A vendor will often claim that
the latest patch or version is always the best. Often times, vendor
support may be denied unless the client upgrades to the current
version or installs the latest patch. This approach is often
flawed, as a particular patch may fix one thing, yet hinder others.
As such, a system administrator may spend a great deal of time
trying to determine which patch causes the least problems
regardless of its release date.
[0198] A method for managing presently installed software
configurations is described below. As previously described,
software dependency routes stored as overlays on a software
dependency map represent previously installed dependency routes for
one or more software applications. Confidence factors for each
route are calculated based on the success rate of an installation
based on a specific dependency route. It is possible that a number
of dependency routes exist for installing Apache 5.5 on Solaris 9.0
update 1. Each route may have the same end result of installing
Apache 5.5, however, each route may have minor nuances that
differentiate them in some way. Out of each route, one may be the
most stable, one may have better performance statistics and one may
be the most secure.
[0199] In one embodiment, a software dependency map hosted by a
service provider comprises two type of nodes; major nodes and minor
nodes. Each type of node is comprised of many individual software
elements and dependencies. A major node is normally user-requested
software that directly relates to the need of the user. An example
might be Apache 5.5. Minor nodes are normally software that is
installed in order to support the desires of the user. An example
might be additional software elements that allows Apache 5.5 run
with stability as its main attribute. There are very few major
nodes compared to the number of minor nodes. For example, Apache
5.5 may have a single major node. Yet there may be 10 different
minor nodes that change the attributes of how Apache 5.5 is
configured.
[0200] In one scenario, a system administrator may want to check
and see if there is a more stable install of Apache 5.5 on Solaris
9 (release B), than the current configuration on their client
system. If such an inquiry is transmitted to the service provider,
it is likely that the minor nodes that support Apache 5.5 are the
nodes being analyzed with the major node being untouched. The
dependency map would analyze the current configuration of Apache
5.5 based on the client manifest and attempt to find a dependency
route that matches this configuration. If such a route does not
exist, a new route is created and given a low confidence factor.
Next, the dependency map compares this new route to existing
dependency routes, along with the confidence factors. If another
route is found to have a higher confidence factor (i.e., less
install or runtime errors and hence more stable) than the new
route, it is selected for installation on the client system.
[0201] Before installation of the new dependency route, the
software agent on the client system performs a depth first search
of the first of the leaves in the dependency graph. The software
agent then works upward from the bottom of the route reinstalling
and updating software elements as needed to match the software
manifest of the client to the software elements and dependencies
from the dependency route chosen for installation. Once the update
of the client is complete, the route information is uploaded to the
dependency map for historical storage.
[0202] While the disclosed embodiments are described in specific
terms, other embodiments encompassing principles of the invention
are also possible. Further, operations may be set forth in a
particular order. The order, however, is but one example of the way
that operations may be provided. Operations may be rearranged,
modified, or eliminated in any particular implementation while
still conforming to aspects of the invention. Embodiments within
the scope of the present invention also include computer readable
media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or
data structures stored thereon. Such computer-readable media may be
any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or
special purpose computer. By way of example, and not limitation,
such computer-readable media can comprise RAM, ROM, EEPROM, DVD, CD
ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other
magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to
carry or store desired program code means in the form of
computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can
be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. When
information is transferred or provided over a network or another
communications link or connection (either hardwired, wireless, or a
combination of hardwired or wireless) to a computer, the computer
properly views the connection as a computer-readable medium. Thus,
any such a connection is properly termed a computer-readable
medium. Combinations of the above should also be included within
the scope of computer-readable media. Computer-executable
instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which
cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or
special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or
group of functions.
[0203] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that aspects of the
invention may be practiced in network computing environments with
many types of computer system configurations, including personal
computers, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems,
microprocessor based or programmable consumer electronics, network
PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. Various
embodiments discussed herein including embodiments involving a
satellite or cable signal delivered to a set-top box, television
system processor, or the like, as well as digital data signals
delivered to some form of multimedia processing configuration, such
as employed for IPTV, or other similar configurations can be
considered as within a network computing environment. Further,
wirelessly connected cell phones, a type of hand-held device, are
considered as within a network computing environment. For example,
cell phones include a processor, memory, display, and some form of
wireless connection, whether digital or analog, and some form of
input medium, such as a keyboards, touch screens, etc. Hand-held
computing platforms can also include video on demand type of
selection ability. Examples of wireless connection technologies
applicable in various mobile embodiments include, but are not
limited to, radio frequency, AM, FM, cellular, television,
satellite, microwave, WiFi, blue-tooth, infrared, and the like.
Hand-held computing platforms do not necessarily require a wireless
connection. For example, a hand-held device may access multimedia
from some form of memory, which may include both integrated memory
(e.g., RAM, Flash, etc) as well as removable memory (e.g., optical
storage media, memory sticks, flash memory cards, etc.) for
playback on the device. Aspects of the invention may also be
practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are
performed by local and remote processing devices that are linked
(either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination of
hardwired or wireless links) through a communications network. In a
distributed computing environment, program modules may be located
in both local and remote memory storage devices.
* * * * *