Emergency operation capability processing method and device of application system

Abstract

The invention discloses an emergency operation capability processing method and device of an application system. The method comprises the steps that when an assessment request of the emergency operation capability of an application system is received, emergency operation capability data of the application system are acquired, and the emergency operation capability data comprise first operation capability data of an application layer, second operation capability data of an infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data and capacity expansion and contraction capability data; scoring the emergency operation capability data to obtain capability scores of the emergency operation capability data; obtaining an overall capability score of the emergency operation capability of the application system according to the capability score; determining an emergency operation capability level of the application system according to the overall capability score; and perfecting the emergency operation capability of the application system according to the emergency operation capability level. According to the invention, when the bank industry application system is abnormal, the system abnormity can be rapidly dealt with, the operation risk is reduced, and the service continuity and the system safety are guaranteed.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of information technology, and more specifically, to a method and apparatus for processing the emergency operation capabilities of an application system. Background Technology

[0002] Currently, most banks rely primarily on post-event analysis and reactive responses when assessing the emergency operational capabilities of their application systems, lacking a comprehensive, systematic, and proactive assessment methodology. This approach suffers from the following problems:

[0003] 1) Incomplete emergency operation capabilities: Traditional assessment methods often only focus on emergency operations at the application layer or infrastructure layer, while neglecting the assessment of disaster recovery construction and one-click scaling capabilities, resulting in assessment results that cannot fully reflect the emergency capabilities of the application system.

[0004] 2) Inconsistent assessment standards: Different banks or departments may use different standards and rules when assessing emergency response capabilities. This not only leads to subjectivity and inconsistency in the assessment results, but also makes it difficult to unify management and improve emergency response capabilities.

[0005] 3) Lack of quantitative assessment: Existing assessment methods rely heavily on qualitative descriptions and manual inspections, lacking a mechanism for quantitatively scoring emergency response capabilities, which makes it difficult to have a clear direction and goal for improving emergency response capabilities.

[0006] 4) Untimely improvement of emergency operation capabilities: Due to the lack of effective assessment and feedback mechanisms, the emergency operation capabilities of application systems are often lagging behind, and they cannot respond to new technical and business challenges in a timely manner.

[0007] While some large financial institutions have begun to experiment with automation tools and platforms to improve the efficiency of emergency operations, there are still significant shortcomings in assessing the overall emergency response capabilities of application systems. Existing automation tools mainly focus on single-level emergency operations, such as database disaster recovery failover and application startup / shutdown, lacking a comprehensive assessment and continuous optimization mechanism for the overall emergency response capabilities of application systems.

[0008] There is currently no effective solution to the above problems. Summary of the Invention

[0009] This invention provides a method and apparatus for handling emergency operation capabilities of an application system, which at least solves the technical problem in the related art that the banking application system suffers from slow system service recovery and poor business continuity due to insufficient emergency operation capabilities when services are unavailable or events are handled.

[0010] According to one aspect of the present invention, an emergency operation capability processing method for an application system is provided, comprising: upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system, acquiring emergency operation capability data of the application system, wherein the emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data; scoring the emergency operation capability data to obtain a capability score; obtaining an overall capability score for the emergency operation capability of the application system based on the capability score; determining the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score; and improving the emergency operation capability of the application system based on the emergency operation capability level.

[0011] Optionally, scoring the emergency operation capability data to obtain a capability score for the emergency operation capability data includes: determining a first weight for the first operation capability data, the second operation capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data; and performing a weighted summation process on the first operation capability data, the second operation capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data according to the weights to obtain the capability score for the first operation capability data, the second operation capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data.

[0012] Optionally, scoring the first operational capability data includes: obtaining access information and verification information representing multiple operational capabilities of the application layer in the first operational capability data; determining a second weight for the multiple operational capabilities, and determining a third weight for the access information and the verification information; performing a weighted summation process on the access information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result for the access information, and simultaneously performing a weighted summation process on the verification information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result for the verification information; and performing a weighted summation process on the weighted summation result for the access information and the weighted summation result for the verification information according to the third weight to obtain a first operational capability score for the first operational capability data.

[0013] Optionally, scoring the second operational capability data includes: determining a fourth weight for multiple technology stacks of the application system; and weighting the information corresponding to the multiple technology stacks according to the fourth weight to obtain a second operational capability score corresponding to the second operational capability data.

[0014] Optionally, the disaster recovery capability data is scored, including: determining a disaster recovery capability level based on the disaster recovery level in the disaster recovery capability data; determining a disaster recovery construction method score based on the matching degree between the disaster recovery capability level and the disaster recovery construction method in the disaster recovery capability data; determining a switching time score based on the matching degree between the switching time and the disaster recovery level and the disaster recovery construction method; and weighting the disaster recovery capability level, the disaster recovery construction method score, and the switching time score to obtain a third operational capability score for the disaster recovery capability data.

[0015] Optionally, the scaling capability data is scored, including: weighting the deployment location information, resource information, and scaling setting information of the application system to obtain a fourth operational capability score for the scaling capability data.

[0016] Optionally, the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained based on the capability scores, including: performing a weighted summation of each capability score to obtain the overall capability score.

[0017] Optionally, determining the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score includes: using the overall capability score as an index, searching in the capability score-capability level mapping relationship to obtain the emergency operation capability level, wherein the capability score-capability level mapping relationship is a pre-generated mapping relationship used to record the relationship between capability scores and capability levels.

[0018] According to another aspect of the present invention, an emergency operation capability processing device for an application system is also provided, comprising: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire emergency operation capability data of the application system upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system, wherein the emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data; a scoring calculation module, configured to score the emergency operation capability data to obtain a capability score; an assessment module, configured to obtain an overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability based on the capability score; a rating module, configured to determine the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score; and an improvement module, configured to improve the emergency operation capability of the application system based on the emergency operation capability level.

[0019] Optionally, the scoring calculation module includes: a first determining submodule, used to determine the first weights of the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data; and a first calculation submodule, used to perform weighted summation processing on the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data according to the weights, to obtain the capability scores of the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data.

[0020] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a first acquisition unit, configured to acquire access information and verification information representing multiple operational capabilities of the application layer in the first operational capability data; a first determination unit, configured to determine a second weight of the multiple operational capabilities and a third weight of the access information and the verification information; a first calculation unit, configured to perform weighted summation processing on the access information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result of the access information, and simultaneously perform weighted summation processing on the verification information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result of the verification information; and an evaluation unit, configured to perform weighted summation processing on the weighted summation result of the access information and the weighted summation result of the verification information according to the third weight to obtain a first operational capability score of the first operational capability data.

[0021] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a second determining unit, configured to determine the fourth weights of multiple technology stacks of the application system; and a second calculation unit, configured to perform weighted processing on the information corresponding to the multiple technology stacks according to the fourth weights to obtain a second operational capability score corresponding to the second operational capability data.

[0022] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a third determining unit, configured to determine a disaster recovery capability level based on the disaster recovery level in the disaster recovery construction capability data; a fourth determining unit, configured to determine a disaster recovery construction method score for the disaster recovery construction method based on the matching degree between the disaster recovery capability level and the disaster recovery construction method in the disaster recovery construction capability data; a fifth determining unit, configured to determine a switching time score for the switching time based on the matching degree between the switching time and the disaster recovery level and the disaster recovery construction method; and a third calculation unit, configured to perform weighted processing on the disaster recovery capability level, the disaster recovery construction method score, and the switching time score to obtain a third operational capability score for the disaster recovery construction capability data.

[0023] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a fourth calculation unit, which performs weighted processing on the deployment location information, resource information and scaling settings information of the application system to obtain a fourth operational capability score of the scaling capability data.

[0024] Optionally, the evaluation module includes: a second calculation submodule, which performs weighted summation on each of the capability scores to obtain the overall capability score.

[0025] Optionally, the rating module includes: a mapping module, which uses the overall capability score as an index to search in the capability score-capability level mapping relationship to obtain the emergency operation capability level, wherein the capability score-capability level mapping relationship is a pre-generated mapping relationship used to record the relationship between capability scores and capability levels.

[0026] According to one aspect of the present invention, an application system is provided that uses the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system described in any one of the above-described embodiments.

[0027] According to one aspect of the present invention, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, the computer-readable storage medium including a stored program, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, performs the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system described in any one of the above embodiments.

[0028] According to one aspect of the present invention, a processor is provided, the processor being configured to run a program, wherein the program, when running, executes the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system described in any one of the above embodiments.

[0029] According to one aspect of the present invention, a computer program product is provided, including computer instructions, which, when executed by a processor, perform the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system described in any one of the above embodiments.

[0030] In this embodiment of the invention, upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of an application system, emergency operation capability data of the application system is acquired. This data includes: first operation capability data at the application layer, second operation capability data at the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data. The emergency operation capability data is scored to obtain a capability score. Based on the capability score, the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained. The emergency operation capability level of the application system is determined based on the overall capability score. The emergency operation capability of the application system is then improved based on the emergency operation capability level. Through this technical solution, upon receiving an assessment request for the application system's emergency operation capability, comprehensive and integrated settings for emergency operation capability sub-items at the application layer and infrastructure layer are achieved. An overlay method is applied in the application system's emergency operation capability assessment method, and hierarchical management is implemented based on the application system's emergency operation capability scoring results. This improves the application system's emergency operation capability and fully utilizes the application system's emergency operation capability assessment device. This significantly enhances the overall stability and business continuity of the application system, effectively solving the key technical problems of low technical handling efficiency and ineffective risk control in banks when responding to emergencies. Attached Figure Description

[0031] The accompanying drawings, which are included to provide a further understanding of the invention and form part of this application, illustrate exemplary embodiments of the invention and, together with their description, serve to explain the invention and do not constitute an undue limitation thereof. In the drawings:

[0032] Figure 1 This is a hardware structure block diagram of a mobile terminal for a control method of an application system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0033] Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating the processing methods used to assess the emergency operation capabilities of an application system.

[0034] Figure 3 This is a data example diagram used to evaluate the access and verification completeness of application layer operational capabilities;

[0035] Figure 4 This is a data example diagram used to assess the access and verification completeness of the infrastructure layer's operational capabilities;

[0036] Figure 5 This is a data example diagram used to evaluate the disaster recovery capabilities of application systems;

[0037] Figure 6 This is a data example diagram used to evaluate the one-click scaling capability of an application system;

[0038] Figure 7This is a schematic diagram of the processing device used to evaluate the emergency operation capability of an application system;

[0039] The above figures include the following reference numerals:

[0040] 102. Processor; 104. Memory; 106. Transmission device; 108. Input / output device. Detailed Implementation

[0041] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present invention, the technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings of the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort should fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0042] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this invention are used to distinguish similar objects and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that such data can be interchanged where appropriate so that the embodiments of the invention described herein can be implemented in orders other than those illustrated or described herein. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion; for example, a process, method, system, product, or apparatus that comprises a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units explicitly listed, but may include other steps or units not explicitly listed or inherent to such processes, methods, products, or apparatus.

[0043] As described in the background section, in related technologies, emergency responders face immense pressure and challenges when banking application systems become unavailable or experience incidents. This is especially true when the application system's emergency operation capabilities are insufficient, leading to slow service recovery and impacting business continuity and system security. Furthermore, there is a lack of a comprehensive and reasonable evaluation system to measure the emergency operation capabilities of application systems. This invention provides a method and apparatus for processing the emergency operation capabilities of application systems, an application system, a computer-readable storage medium, a processor, and a computer program product.

[0044] The technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention.

[0045] The methods and embodiments provided in this invention can be executed on a mobile terminal, a computer terminal, or a similar computing device. Taking running on a mobile terminal as an example, Figure 1This is a hardware structure block diagram of a mobile terminal for an application system's emergency operation capability processing method, according to an embodiment of the present invention. (See diagram below.) Figure 1 As shown, a mobile terminal may include one or more ( Figure 1 Only one is shown in the diagram. A processor 102 (which may include, but is not limited to, a microprocessor MCU or a programmable logic device FPGA, etc.) and a memory 104 for storing data are also shown. The mobile terminal may further include a transmission device 106 for communication functions and an input / output device 108. Those skilled in the art will understand that... Figure 1 The structure shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not limit the structure of the mobile terminal described above. For example, the mobile terminal may also include components that are more... Figure 1 The more or fewer components shown, or having the same Figure 1 The different configurations shown.

[0046] The memory 104 can be used to store computer programs, such as application software programs and modules, like the computer program corresponding to the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system in this embodiment of the invention. The processor 102 executes various functional applications and data processing by running the computer program stored in the memory 104, thereby implementing the above-described method. The memory 104 may include high-speed random access memory and may also include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic storage devices, flash memory, or other non-volatile solid-state memory. In some instances, the memory 104 may further include memory remotely located relative to the processor 102, and these remote memories can be connected to the mobile terminal via a network. Examples of the above-described networks include, but are not limited to, the Internet, corporate intranets, local area networks, mobile communication networks, and combinations thereof. The transmission device 106 is used to receive or send data via a network. Specific examples of the above-described networks may include wireless networks provided by the mobile terminal's communication provider. In one example, the transmission device 106 includes a network interface controller (NIC), which can be connected to other network devices via a base station to communicate with the Internet. In one example, the transmission device 106 may be a radio frequency (RF) module, which is used to communicate with the Internet wirelessly.

[0047] Example 1

[0048] According to an embodiment of the present invention, an embodiment of a method for processing the emergency operation capability of an application system is provided. It should be noted that the steps shown in the flowchart in the accompanying drawings can be executed in a computer system such as a set of computer-executable instructions. Furthermore, although a logical order is shown in the flowchart, in some cases, the steps shown or described may be executed in a different order than that shown here.

[0049] Figure 2 This is a flowchart of an application system emergency operation capability processing method according to an embodiment of the present invention, such as... Figure 2 As shown, the method includes the following steps:

[0050] Step S202: Upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system, acquire the emergency operation capability data of the application system. The emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data.

[0051] Optionally, the aforementioned disaster recovery capability refers to an organization's ability to pre-design and implement a series of data backup, business recovery, and disaster recovery strategies and technical measures to ensure the integrity of critical business data and business continuity in the face of emergencies such as natural disasters, human-caused damage, and system failures.

[0052] In this embodiment, in response to the assessment request of the emergency operation capability of the application system, the emergency operation completeness data of the application system is obtained. The emergency operation completeness data includes: access and verification data of emergency operation at the application layer, access and verification data of emergency operation at the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction data of the application system, and one-click scaling data.

[0053] Figure 3 This is a data example diagram from an embodiment of the present invention used to evaluate the access and verification completeness of application layer operational capabilities, such as... Figure 3 As shown, based on the disaster recovery level of the application system (disaster recovery levels 1-6), the completeness of the access and verification of five operational capabilities (start / stop, flow control, isolation, switchover, and rollback) is statistically analyzed from the perspective of operational capability access and verification, ultimately obtaining a score for this capability. Access and verification statuses include three categories: accessed, not accessed, and not involved. Each category of operation corresponds to specific access rules and requirements. Verification cycles include annual, semi-annual, and quarterly periods, with each category of operation corresponding to specific verification cycles and resource coverage requirements.

[0054] Figure 4 This is a data example diagram from an embodiment of the present invention used to evaluate the access and verification completeness of infrastructure layer operational capabilities, such as... Figure 4As shown, from the perspectives of system and network lines, the completeness of access and verification of the capabilities of mainstream technology stacks for five operations (start / stop, flow control, isolation, switching, and rollback) is statistically analyzed to obtain the total score for this capability. The system line technology stack includes six categories: database, load balancer, application middleware, message middleware, virtual resources (cloud platform), and operating system. The network line technology stack includes five categories: network load balancer, network DNS, network switch, network firewall, and network router. Corresponding access rules and verification strategies are set for the five operations corresponding to each technology stack.

[0055] Figure 5 This is a data example diagram from an embodiment of the present invention used to evaluate the disaster recovery capabilities of an application system, such as... Figure 5 As shown, the score for this capability item is calculated based on dimensions such as the application system's disaster recovery capability level, disaster recovery construction method, STO, RTO, and RPO requirements. The system's disaster recovery capability level includes levels 1-6. The disaster recovery construction method is related to the disaster recovery level and includes multi-site active-active, dual-site active-active, intra-city dual-active + off-site disaster recovery, off-site disaster recovery, local data backup, and off-site data backup. The STO, RTO, and RPO requirements have specific indicator requirements based on the disaster recovery level and disaster recovery construction method.

[0056] Figure 6 This is a data example diagram from an embodiment of the present invention used to evaluate the one-click scaling capability of an application system, such as... Figure 6 As shown, for application systems deployed on cloud platforms, the score for this capability item is calculated from dimensions such as whether resource information is clear, scaling strategy settings, and one-click scaling orchestration scripts. Clear resource-related information includes namespaces, resource configurations, network zones, and x86 / ARM architecture. Scaling strategy settings and one-click scaling orchestration scripts have corresponding specification requirements depending on the resource type.

[0057] This method triggers a data collection process when the system detects or receives an emergency operation capability assessment request for a specific application system. The core of this process is to collect key emergency operation data from multiple layers of the application system through automated means or manual review. First, it collects primary operation capability data from the application layer. This data involves the access status and verification cycle of operations such as start / stop, flow control, isolation, switching, and rollback, reflecting the maturity of the application-level emergency response. Second, it collects secondary operation capability data from the infrastructure layer, focusing on the underlying technology stack, such as databases and network devices, and their corresponding operation capabilities and disaster recovery readiness, ensuring the stability and redundancy of the infrastructure. Subsequently, it collects disaster recovery construction capability data to verify whether preset disaster recovery levels and disaster recovery switching indicators (such as STO, RTO, RPO) are met, evaluating the effectiveness of disaster recovery strategies. Finally, for applications deployed on the cloud platform, it collects scaling capability data, including the clarity of resource information, the setting of scaling strategies, and the completeness of scaling scripts, ensuring that the system can flexibly adjust resources in emergency situations.

[0058] By implementing this control method, the accuracy and depth of application system emergency response capability assessment have been significantly enhanced. Automated data collection enables rapid and comprehensive acquisition of the application system's emergency response status across different dimensions, avoiding subjective biases and omissions inherent in human assessments. This data not only covers the emergency response capabilities of the application and infrastructure layers but also deeply considers disaster recovery construction and resource scaling strategies, resulting in more comprehensive and holistic assessment results.

[0059] Step S204: Score the emergency operation capability data to obtain the capability score of the emergency operation capability data.

[0060] In this embodiment, at least one of the following is determined based on the preset scoring rules and four capability items: the completeness score of emergency operation capability of the application layer and infrastructure layer, the disaster recovery construction score of the application system, and the one-click scaling score.

[0061] This method involves the system quantitatively analyzing previously collected emergency response capability data according to predefined scoring rules. This process aims to transform abstract emergency response capabilities into concrete numerical representations for objective and fair evaluation. The scoring rules typically cover multiple dimensions of each capability, such as access status, verification cycle, disaster recovery level matching, and the feasibility of one-click scaling. Each dimension is assigned a score based on its implementation, ranging from 0 to 100, representing the completeness of the capability. The system then performs a weighted sum of the scores for each dimension to generate a capability score for each emergency response capability, where the weights reflect the importance of each dimension to the overall emergency response capability.

[0062] By implementing this control method, the key performance indicators of the application system's emergency operation capabilities are converted into intuitive scores, facilitating the rapid identification of strengths and weaknesses in the emergency response mechanism. By simplifying complex operational capabilities and disaster recovery status into capability scores, operations personnel and decision-makers can clearly understand the system's emergency preparedness status and make optimization decisions without delving into technical details.

[0063] Step S206: Obtain the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability based on the capability score.

[0064] In this embodiment, the evaluation result of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained based on at least one of the four capability items.

[0065] This method calculates the overall emergency response capability score of the application system according to a comprehensive scoring principle, aiming to integrate the capability scores obtained in step S204 into a global view. This process typically involves weighting the scores of the application layer, infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction, and one-click scaling capability according to pre-set weights, where the weights reflect the importance of each layer to the overall emergency response capability.

[0066] By implementing this control method, the emergency response capability of the application system is expressed in a concise and clear numerical form: the overall capability score. This not only provides the operations and maintenance team and management with an intuitive capability indicator but also facilitates a clear understanding of the optimization needs for emergency operations. The overall capability score directly reflects the robustness and recovery speed of the application system in the face of emergencies, helping to identify areas that require priority improvement, such as strengthening operational capabilities at a specific level or accelerating disaster recovery construction.

[0067] Step S208: Determine the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score.

[0068] In this embodiment, the emergency operation capability level of the application system is obtained based on the application system's emergency operation capability assessment score and the corresponding level of the score.

[0069] The core of this method lies in mapping the overall emergency operation capability score of the application system, calculated in S206, to a preset level range. This level division typically has clear boundary values. For example, an overall capability score of 0-20 might be classified as Level 5, indicating a significant deficiency in emergency operation capability; 21-40 as Level 4, indicating that emergency operation capability requires significant improvement; 41-60 as Level 3, indicating that emergency operation capability is basically in place but still needs optimization; 61-80 as Level 2, indicating good emergency operation capability but still some room for improvement; and 81-100 as Level 1, representing that the application system performs excellently in emergency operation, capable of quickly responding to emergencies and effectively restoring services.

[0070] By implementing this control method, the assessment results of application system emergency response capabilities become both visible and actionable. Converting the overall capability score into levels simplifies the interpretation of the assessment results and provides clear improvement goals and priorities for the operations team and management. For example, an application system rated at Level 3 will have its operations team aware of which emergency response sub-items need focused improvement to elevate it to a higher level.

[0071] Step S210: Improve the emergency operation capability of the application system according to the emergency operation capability level.

[0072] In this embodiment, the overall score of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained by weighted summation of the scores of the above four capability items. Based on the evaluation results, the emergency operation capability is graded, and the evaluation result of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained, providing a basis for the gradual improvement of the emergency operation capability.

[0073] This method determines specific operations and improvement measures based on the emergency response capability level of the application system, aiming to gradually improve the system's emergency response efficiency and reliability. This process typically includes analyzing the shortcomings in emergency response capabilities reflected by the current level, such as inadequate application-layer operational capabilities, insufficient redundancy at the infrastructure layer, substandard disaster recovery construction, or the lack of one-click scaling mechanisms. Based on these analysis results, the operations team will develop a detailed improvement plan, which may involve technology upgrades, disaster recovery strategy optimization, standardization of operational procedures, and enhanced emergency drills.

[0074] By implementing this control method, the emergency response mechanism of the application system will be significantly enhanced, enabling it to handle various emergencies more quickly and effectively, ensuring business continuity and data security. This process not only addresses specific issues identified in the assessment, such as improving the automatic recovery capability of operations, enhancing the timeliness of disaster recovery switchover, or refining resource scaling strategies, but also promotes the maturity and standardization of the overall emergency response strategy, reducing future uncertainties and risks.

[0075] As described above, in this embodiment, upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system, emergency operation capability data of the application system is acquired. This data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data. The emergency operation capability data is scored to obtain a capability score. Based on the capability score, the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained. The emergency operation capability level of the application system is determined based on the overall capability score. The emergency operation capability of the application system is improved based on the emergency operation capability level. This achieves the goal of comprehensively setting the application layer and infrastructure layer emergency operation capability sub-items when receiving an assessment request for the application system's emergency operation capability, applying an overlay method in the application system emergency operation capability assessment method, and performing hierarchical management based on the application system emergency operation capability scoring results. This makes the application system's emergency operation capability more complete and fully utilizes the application system emergency operation capability assessment device. Therefore, it achieves the technical effects of enhancing the application system's emergency operation capability, reducing operational risks and costs, optimizing resource allocation, and establishing quantitative standards for disaster recovery capability.

[0076] Therefore, the technical solution provided by the above embodiments of the present invention solves the technical problem that emergency responders face enormous pressure and challenges when banking application systems are unavailable or events occur, especially when the application system's emergency operation capabilities are insufficient, resulting in the system's inability to quickly restore services and affecting business continuity and system security.

[0077] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, scoring emergency operation capability data to obtain capability scores for emergency operation capability data includes: determining first weights for first operation capability data, second operation capability data, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling-up capability data; and performing weighted summation processing on the first operation capability data, second operation capability data, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling-up capability data according to the weights to obtain capability scores for the first operation capability data, second operation capability data, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling-up capability data.

[0078] In this embodiment, the emergency operation capability assessment of application system P includes four parts: the completeness assessment of application-layer emergency operation capability, the completeness assessment of infrastructure-layer emergency operation capability, the disaster recovery construction capability assessment, and the one-click scaling capability assessment, denoted by A, B, C, and D respectively. The assessment result of P is expressed as P = TA + TB + TC + TD. The overall score of P is 100, and the weights of the four parts are a, b, c, d, and a + b + c + d = 1. Furthermore, a hierarchical management system is implemented based on the scores: 0-20 is level five, 21-40 is level four, 41-60 is level three, 61-80 is level two, and 81-100 is level one. Based on the emergency operation capability assessment level obtained by the system, relevant pending processes are pushed to remind maintenance personnel to promptly improve the system's emergency operation capabilities.

[0079] This study employs a weighted summation method to quantify and integrate emergency operational capability data from different dimensions, achieving a comprehensive score for the application system's emergency operational capabilities. First, the weights of each capability data point (application-layer primary operational capability data, infrastructure-layer secondary operational capability data, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data) need to be determined. These weights reflect their relative importance within the overall emergency response capability and are typically set based on expert knowledge and historical data. Next, a weighted summation formula is used to multiply each capability data point by its corresponding weight, and then these weighted scores are summed to calculate the overall system's comprehensive emergency operational capability score.

[0080] After implementing this scoring step, the emergency response capability of the application system can be represented by a highly representative numerical value: a capability score. This score not only reveals the current emergency response level of the system but also provides clear directions for optimization and improvement. High-weight capability items with low scores indicate that they are key areas for improving emergency response capabilities; conversely, low-scoring but low-weight capability items may be secondary improvement targets. In this way, the operations team can quickly identify weaknesses in emergency response capabilities and concentrate resources on targeted optimization and improvement, such as enhancing the automation of application-layer operations, increasing infrastructure redundancy, improving disaster recovery switchover time targets, or building more intelligent one-click scaling strategies.

[0081] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, scoring the first operational capability data includes: obtaining access information and verification information representing multiple operational capabilities of the application layer in the first operational capability data; determining a second weight for the multiple operational capabilities, and determining a third weight for the access information and verification information; performing weighted summation processing on the access information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result for the access information, and simultaneously performing weighted summation processing on the verification information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result for the verification information; and performing weighted summation processing on the weighted summation result for the access information and the weighted summation result for the verification information according to the third weight to obtain a first operational capability score for the first operational capability data.

[0082] In this embodiment, the disaster recovery level of the application system is determined from the dimension of operational capability access and verification. The completeness scores of the access and verification of five operational capabilities (start / stop, flow control, isolation, switching, and rollback) are statistically analyzed. TPA1 and TPA2 represent the application layer operational access and verification evaluation results, with weights a1, a2, and a1+a2=1, where TPA1∈{0,100aa1}, TPA2∈{0,100aa2}. The evaluation result of A is TA=TPA1+TPA2, TA∈{0,100a}. TPA1A 11 TPA1A 12 ......TPA1A 1z This indicates the access status of five application layer operation capabilities, with each capability having a weight of a. 11 a 12 , ..., a 1z z=1,…,5,TPA1A 1z =100aa1a 1z ,TPA1=ΣTPA1A 1z， TPA1A 1z ∈{0,100aa1}. Using TPA1A respectively... 21 TPA1A 22 ......TPA1A 2y This represents the verification status of five operational capabilities at the application layer, with each capability having a weight of a. 11 a 12 , ..., a 1y , y=1,…,5,TPA1A 2y =100aa1a 1y ,TPA2=ΣTPA1A 2y TPA1A 2y ∈{0,100aa2}. If the access status of a certain operation capability in the application layer is "accessed" or "not involved", it means that it has been accessed. For example, if TPA1A 11 =0 indicates that the application layer start / stop operation is not connected, TPA1A 11 =100aa1a11 When it is, it means that the start / stop operation of the application layer has been connected. If 0 < TPA1A 11 <100aa1a 11 , it means that the connection of the start / stop operation of the application layer needs to be improved. The verification status of a certain operation ability is similar to the connection status, so it will not be elaborated. If the connection status of the five operation abilities of the application layer all meet the requirements of being connected or not involved, it means that the operation connection ability of the application layer has been achieved. For example: if TPA1 = 0, it means that none of the five operation connection abilities of the application layer have been achieved; if TPA1 = 100aa1, it means that the five operation connection abilities of the application layer have been achieved. If 0 < TPA1 < 100aa1, it means that the connection of the five operation abilities of the application layer needs to be improved. The verification status of the five operation abilities is similar to the connection status, so it will not be elaborated. If the connection and verification status of the five operation abilities of the application layer all meet the requirements of being connected or not involved, it means that the operation ability of the application layer has been achieved. For example: if TA = 0, it means that the operation ability of the application layer has not been achieved; if TA = 100a, it means that the operation ability of the application layer has been achieved. If 0 < TA < 100a, it means that the connection of the operation ability of the application layer needs to be improved.

[0083] When scoring the first operation ability data here, a refined scoring mechanism of multi-level weighted summation is adopted to quantitatively evaluate the emergency operation ability of the application layer. First, the system collects and analyzes the connection information and verification information of the five key operations (such as start / stop, flow control, isolation, switching, rollback) of the application layer in the first operation ability data, and these information reflect the implementation status and reliability of the operation functions. Subsequently, determine the second weight of each operation, which aims to reflect the relative importance of different operations in the overall emergency strategy; at the same time, define the third weight of the connection information and verification information to distinguish the contribution of the operation connection status and verification cycle to the emergency ability. Next, the system performs weighted summation on the connection information and verification information of each operation according to the second weight respectively to generate their respective weighted results. Finally, according to the third weight, sum these weighted results again to obtain the first operation ability score of the application layer.

[0084] Through this scoring step, the emergency operation ability of the application layer obtains a quantified and weighted first operation ability score, which not only provides an intuitive measure of the maturity of the emergency operation ability, but also promotes the precise guidance for the optimization of the operation ability.

[0085] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, scoring the second operation ability data includes: determining the fourth weight of multiple technology stacks of the application system; performing weighted processing on the information corresponding to the multiple technology stacks according to the fourth weight to obtain the second operation ability score corresponding to the second operation ability data.

[0086] In this embodiment, from the system and network perspectives, the completeness scores of access and verification capabilities for five operations (start / stop, flow control, isolation, switching, and rollback) corresponding to mainstream technology stacks are statistically analyzed. TPB1 and TPB2 represent the access and verification scores for infrastructure layer operation capabilities, with weights of b1 and b2, respectively, where b1 + b2 = 1, TPB1 ∈ {0, 100bb1}, TPB2 ∈ {0, 100bb2}, and the evaluation result of B is TB = TPB1 + TPB2, TB ∈ {0, 100b}. TPB1B... 11 ,TPB1B 12 ,...,TPB1B 1x This represents the operational capability score of 11 technology stacks (database, load balancer, application middleware, message middleware, virtual resources (cloud platform), operating system, network load balancer, network DNS, network switch, network firewall, and network router) across the system and network lines, with a weight of b. 11 ,...b 1x ,Σb 1x =1,TPB1B 1x =100bb1b 1x ,TPB1B 1x ∈{0,100bb1},TPB1=ΣTPB1B 1x x=1,...,11, respectively using TPB1B 11 B 111 ,TPB1B 11 B 122 , ...,TPB1B 1x B 1XW This represents the access score result for five operational capabilities corresponding to a certain technology stack, with a weight assigned to b. 111 ,...b 1xw , Σb 1xw =1,TPB1B 1x B 1xw =100bb1b 1x b 1xw ,TPB1B 1x B 1xw ∈{0,100bb1b 1x},TPB1B 1x =ΣTPB1B 1x B 1XW w=1,...,5. Similarly, use TPB2B respectively. 21 TPB2B 22 ,...,TPB2B 2v This represents the operational capability verification score for the 11 technology stacks in the system and network lines, with a weight assigned to b. 21 ,...b2v ,Σb 2v =1,TPB2B 2v =100bb2b 2v TPB2B 2v ∈{0,100bb2},TPB2=ΣTPB2B 2v v=1,...,11, respectively using TPB2B 21 B 211 TPB2B 21 B 212 , ...,TPB2B 21 B 2vu This represents the verification score of five operational capabilities corresponding to a certain technology stack, with a weight assigned to b. 211 ,...b 2vu , Σb 21u =1,Σb 22u =1,...Σb 211u =1,TPB2B 2v B 2vu =100bb2b 2v b 2vu TPB2B 2v B 2vu ∈{0,100bb2b 2v},TPB2B 2v =ΣTPB2B 2v B 2vu μ=1,...,5. If the access status of a certain operational capability of a certain technology stack in the infrastructure layer is "accessed" or "not involved," it means it is already accessed. For example, if TPB1B... 11 B 111 =0 indicates that the infrastructure layer database start / stop operation is not connected, TPB1B 11 B 111 =100bb1b 11 b 111 At this time, it indicates that the infrastructure layer database start / stop operation has been connected. If 0 <TPB1B 11 B 111 <100bb1b 11 b 111 This indicates that the database start / stop operation access capability of the infrastructure layer needs further improvement. The verification status of a specific operation capability within a technology stack is similar to the access status and will not be elaborated further. If all five operation capabilities of a technology stack in the infrastructure layer meet the access status criteria of "accessed" or "not involved," it means that the five operation access capabilities of that technology stack in the infrastructure layer are already available. For example: if TPB1B... 11 =0 indicates that none of the five operational capabilities of the infrastructure layer database are available for access, if TPB1B 11 =100bb1b 11, representing that the access to five operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer database has been achieved. If 0 < TPB1B 11 <100bb1b 11 , representing that the access capabilities of five operations of the infrastructure layer database need to be improved. The verification status of the five operation capabilities of a certain technology stack in the infrastructure layer is similar to the access status and will not be elaborated. If the access status of the five operation capabilities of all technology stacks in the infrastructure layer meets the conditions of being already accessed or not involved, it represents that the access to the operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer has been achieved. For example: if TPB1 = 0, it represents that the access to the operation capabilities of all technology stacks in the infrastructure layer has not been achieved; if TPB1 = 100bb1, it represents that the access to the operation capabilities of all technology stacks in the infrastructure layer has been achieved. If 0 < TPB1 < 100bb1, it represents that the access capabilities of five operations in the infrastructure layer need to be improved. The verification status of the five operation capabilities of all technology stacks in the infrastructure layer is similar to the access status and will not be elaborated. If the access and verification status of the five operation capabilities of all technology stacks in the infrastructure layer meet the conditions of being already accessed or not involved, it represents that the operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer have been achieved. For example: if TB = 0, it represents that the operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer have not been achieved; if TB = 100b, it represents that the operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer have been achieved. If 0 < TB < 100b, it represents that the operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer need to be improved.

[0087] During the implementation of scoring the second operation capability data, it focuses on the assessment of the emergency operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer. By setting the fourth weights of multiple technology stacks, their strategic values in the overall emergency architecture are reflected. The technology stacks may include various categories such as databases, load balancers, middleware, etc. Each technology stack has different weights due to its different roles in system stability. The system will collect and analyze the access and verification data of five key operations (such as start / stop, flow control, isolation, switching, rollback) under each technology stack, and then perform weighted summation on these data according to the fourth weights to finally form a second operation capability score reflecting the integrity of the emergency operation capabilities of the infrastructure layer.

[0088] Through this mechanism, the capabilities of those technology stacks crucial for business continuity can be preferentially enhanced, ensuring that in case of failures, key infrastructure components can be quickly restored and the service interruption time can be reduced.

[0089] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, scoring the disaster recovery construction capability data includes: determining the disaster recovery capability level according to the disaster recovery level in the disaster recovery construction capability data; determining the disaster recovery construction method score of the disaster recovery construction method according to the matching degree between the disaster recovery capability level and the disaster recovery construction method in the disaster recovery construction capability data; determining the switching time score of the switching time according to the matching degree between the switching time and the disaster recovery level and the disaster recovery construction method; performing weighted processing on the disaster recovery capability level, the disaster recovery construction method score, and the switching time score to obtain the third operation capability score of the disaster recovery construction capability data.

[0090] In this embodiment, the score of this capability item is calculated based on dimensions such as whether the disaster recovery capability level of the application system is clear, the disaster tolerance construction method, STO, RTO, RPO index requirements, etc. The system disaster recovery capability level includes disaster recovery levels 1-6. The disaster tolerance construction method has clear requirements according to the disaster recovery level, including multi-site active-active, dual-site active-active,同城双活+异地灾备 (dual-site active-active in the same city + off-site disaster recovery), off-site disaster recovery, local data backup, off-site data backup, etc. STO, RTO, and RPO have determined index requirements according to the disaster recovery level and the disaster tolerance construction method. Respectively use TPC1, TPC2..., TPC t to represent the scoring results of the disaster recovery capability level, the disaster tolerance construction method, STO, RTO, and RPO, and the weights are c1,..., c t , Σc t = 1, TPC t = 100cc t , t = 1,..., 5, TC = ΣTPC t , TC ∈ {0, 100c}. If the disaster recovery level is clear, TPC1 = 100cc1; if the disaster recovery level is not clear, TPC1 = 0; if the disaster tolerance construction method matches the disaster recovery level, for example, a level 6 disaster recovery system meets the disaster tolerance construction method of dual-site active-active in the same city + off-site disaster recovery or dual-site active-active or multi-site active-active disaster tolerance, then TPC2 = 100cc2; if the disaster tolerance construction method is not established, then TPC2 = 0; if the disaster tolerance construction method does not match the disaster recovery level, 0 < TPC2 < 100cc2; if STO meets the disaster recovery level and the disaster tolerance construction requirements, for example, the ST0 of a level 6 disaster recovery system for in-city disaster tolerance is 2 minutes, then TPC3 = 100cc3; if STO does not meet or is close to the disaster recovery level and the disaster tolerance construction requirements, then 0 < TPC3 < 1; the index scoring of RTO and RPO is similar to that of STO and will not be elaborated here. If TC = 0, the system does not have the disaster tolerance construction ability; if TC = 100c, the system's disaster tolerance construction ability is fully available; if 0 < TC < 100c, the system's disaster tolerance construction ability needs to be improved.

[0091] The scoring of disaster recovery capability data here employs a strategy combining key factors such as disaster recovery level, the matching degree of disaster recovery construction methods, and the switching time objective (STO). First, the expected disaster recovery capability requirements are determined based on the application system's disaster recovery level. This level reflects the urgency and complexity of restoring service to the application system in the event of a disaster. Next, the matching degree between the actual disaster recovery construction method and the preset disaster recovery level is evaluated. If the construction method fully meets the requirements of the disaster recovery level, a high score is awarded; otherwise, the score is lowered. Then, the system checks whether the actual switching time meets the STO requirements under the disaster recovery level and construction method, again determining the switching time score based on the degree of compliance. Finally, the scores for disaster recovery capability level, disaster recovery construction method, and switching time are weighted according to preset weights. This weighting system is based on expert experience and historical data analysis, aiming to balance the importance of each indicator.

[0092] Through this step, the disaster recovery capabilities of the application system are comprehensively and quantitatively evaluated. The third operational capability score directly reflects the quality of disaster recovery construction and strategy execution. A high score indicates a well-developed disaster recovery system capable of efficiently restoring services within the specified time; while a low score indicates deficiencies in the disaster recovery strategy or problems in its execution, such as excessively long switchover times or mismatches between disaster recovery methods and levels. This scoring result provides the operations and maintenance team with specific optimization directions, guiding them to conduct in-depth analysis and rectification in areas such as disaster recovery level matching, disaster recovery method selection, and switchover time optimization. This gradually enhances the system's disaster recovery capabilities, ensuring that the application system can quickly recover to the predetermined service level in the event of a disaster, guaranteeing business continuity and data security.

[0093] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, scoring the scaling capability data includes: weighting the application system's deployment location information, resource information, and scaling setting information to obtain a fourth operational capability score for the scaling capability data.

[0094] In this embodiment, for application systems deployed on a cloud platform, the score for this capability item is calculated from dimensions such as whether resource information is clear, scaling strategy settings, and one-click scaling orchestration scripts. Resource-related information is clear, including namespaces, resource configurations, network zones, and x86 / ARM architectures. Scaling strategy settings and one-click scaling orchestration scripts have corresponding specification requirements depending on the resource type. For application systems deployed on a cloud platform, TPD1, ​​TPD2, and TPD3 represent the score results for whether resource information is clear, scaling strategy settings, and one-click scaling orchestration scripts, respectively, with weights of d1, d2, and d3, where d1+d2+d3=1, and TPD... s =100dd s, s = 1, 2, 3, TD = ΣTPD S , TD ∈ {0, 100d}. If the application system is not deployed on the cloud platform, this capability item is defaulted to be satisfied, TD = 100d; if the application system is deployed on the cloud platform and the resource information is clear, then TPD1 = 100dd1, if the resource information is not fully clear, then 0 < TPD1 < 100dd1; if the scaling policy is not set, then TPD2 = 0, if the scaling policy is not set completely, then 0 < TPD2 < 100dd2, if the scaling policy is set completely, then TPD2 = 100dd2. The one-click scaling and expansion orchestration script is similar to the scaling policy setting and will not be elaborated here. If TD = 0, the one-click scaling and expansion capability of the system is not available. If TD = 100d, the one-click scaling and expansion capability of the system is fully available. If 0 < TC < 100c, the one-click scaling and expansion capability of the system needs to be improved.

[0095] When evaluating the scaling and expansion capability data here, by analyzing the deployment location information, resource information, and scaling and expansion setting information of the application system, and performing weighted processing on this information, the ability of the system in resource elastic management is comprehensively reflected. The deployment location information mainly examines whether the application is deployed on a cloud platform with high availability and elastic scaling capabilities; the resource information focuses on the clarity of resources and the rationality of configuration; the scaling and expansion setting information includes the formulation of the scaling and expansion policy, the perfection degree of the automation script, etc. Each type of information is assigned different weights according to its importance to the scaling and expansion capability, and then these information are weighted and summed according to their weights to generate the fourth operation ability score of the scaling and expansion capability.

[0096] By implementing this scoring step, the scaling and expansion capability of the application system obtains a comprehensive and weighted fourth operation ability score, which not only provides a quantitative feedback for the operation and maintenance team, indicating the actual effectiveness of resource management and the scaling and expansion policy, but also provides a clear direction for subsequent optimization.

[0097] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, the overall ability score of the emergency operation ability of the application system is obtained according to the ability score, including: performing weighted sum processing on each ability score to obtain the overall ability score.

[0098] In this embodiment, an evaluation result regarding the emergency operation ability of the application system is obtained according to at least one of the above 4 capability item scores.

[0099] Here, when conducting a comprehensive assessment of the application system's emergency response capabilities, a weighted summation statistical method is used to comprehensively analyze the capability scores obtained in the previous step (including the first, second, third, and fourth operational capability scores). Each score is assigned a specific weight based on its contribution to the overall system's emergency response capability. These weights reflect the relative importance of various emergency response capabilities in ensuring system stability and business continuity. By multiplying each score by its corresponding weight and then summing all weighted scores, the system calculates an overall capability score that comprehensively reflects the maturity and completeness of the application system's emergency response capabilities.

[0100] This mechanism not only ensures continuous improvement in emergency response capabilities but also promotes balance and synergy among various emergency measures. The ultimate goal is to build a highly resilient and highly available application system that can respond quickly and recover efficiently, significantly enhancing business continuity and user satisfaction.

[0101] According to the above embodiments of the present invention, determining the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score includes: using the overall capability score as an index, searching in the capability score-capability level mapping relationship to obtain the emergency operation capability level, wherein the capability score-capability level mapping relationship is a pre-generated mapping relationship used to record the relationship between capability scores and capability levels.

[0102] In this embodiment, the emergency operation capability level of the application system is obtained based on the application system's emergency operation capability assessment score and the corresponding level of the score.

[0103] Here, determining the emergency operation capability level of an application system relies on a pre-established capability score-capability level mapping relationship. This is a set of rules that defines different score ranges corresponding to different capability levels, usually formulated by experts based on experience and calibrated using historical data. In practice, the system takes the calculated overall capability score as input and searches the mapping relationship table. The mapping relationship table associates the score range with five preset levels (level one to five), where level one is the highest level, representing the best emergency operation capability; level five is the lowest level, which may indicate a significant deficiency in emergency operation capability.

[0104] The advantage of this method is that it transforms complex scoring results into intuitive emergency response capability levels, making it easier for operations teams, management, and other stakeholders to quickly understand the system's performance in emergency response.

[0105] As described above, by comprehensively setting up emergency operation capability sub-items at the application layer and infrastructure layer of the application system, the iterative method is applied to the assessment of the application system's emergency operation capability. Based on the application system's emergency operation capability scoring results, hierarchical management is implemented, making the application system's emergency operation capability increasingly comprehensive and continuously improving its emergency response capabilities. This fully utilizes the corresponding application system emergency operation capability assessment device. It achieves the technical effects of enhancing the application system's emergency operation capability, reducing operational risks and costs, optimizing resource allocation, and establishing quantitative standards for disaster recovery capabilities. It solves the technical problem of the immense pressure and challenges faced by emergency responders when banking application systems are unavailable or incidents occur, especially when the application system's emergency operation capability is insufficient, leading to the inability to quickly restore service and affecting business continuity and system security.

[0106] It should be noted that, for the sake of simplicity, the foregoing method embodiments are all described as a series of actions. However, those skilled in the art should understand that this application is not limited to the described order of actions, as some steps may be performed in other orders or simultaneously according to this application. Furthermore, those skilled in the art should also understand that the embodiments described in the specification are preferred embodiments, and the actions and modules involved are not necessarily essential to this application.

[0107] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that the methods according to the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms. Of course, they can also be implemented by hardware, but in many cases the former is a better implementation method. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium (such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk) and includes several instructions to cause a terminal device (which may be a mobile phone, computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute the methods of the various embodiments of this application.

[0108] Example 2

[0109] According to embodiments of the present invention, an emergency operation capability processing device for implementing the above-described application system is also provided. Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram of an emergency operation capability processing device for an application system according to an embodiment of the present invention, such as... Figure 7 As shown, the device includes: a data acquisition module 701, an evaluation calculation module 703, an evaluation module 705, a rating module 707, and an improvement module 709. The device will now be described in detail.

[0110] The data acquisition module 701 is used to acquire the emergency operation capability data of the application system when it receives an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system. The emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and expansion and contraction capability data.

[0111] The assessment and calculation module 703 is used to score the emergency operation capability data and obtain the capability score of the emergency operation capability data.

[0112] The assessment module 705 is used to obtain the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability based on the capability score.

[0113] Rating module 707 is used to determine the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score.

[0114] Improve module 709 to enhance the emergency operation capabilities of the application system based on the emergency operation capability level.

[0115] It should be noted that the data acquisition module 701, evaluation calculation module 703, evaluation module 705, rating module 707 and improvement module 709 mentioned above correspond to steps S202 to S210 in the above embodiments. The five modules and the corresponding steps implement the same instances and application scenarios, but are not limited to the content disclosed in the above embodiments.

[0116] As can be seen from the above, in the solution described in the above embodiments of the present invention, a data acquisition module can be used to acquire emergency operation capability data of the application system when receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system. The emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data. An assessment calculation module is used to score the emergency operation capability data to obtain a capability score. An assessment module is used to obtain the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability based on the capability score. A rating module is used to determine the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score. Finally, an improvement module is used to improve the application system's emergency operation capability based on the emergency operation capability level. The above solution achieves the goal of comprehensively setting up emergency operation capability sub-items at both the application layer and infrastructure layer of the application system when receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system. It applies an overlay method to the application system emergency operation capability assessment methodology, and conducts hierarchical management based on the application system's emergency operation capability scoring results. This makes the application system's emergency operation capability more complete and fully utilizes the application system emergency operation capability assessment device. As a result, it significantly enhances the overall stability and business continuity of the application system, effectively solving the key technical problems of low technical processing efficiency and inadequate risk control in banks when responding to emergencies.

[0117] Optionally, the scoring calculation module includes: a first determining submodule, used to determine the first weights of the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data; and a first calculation submodule, used to perform weighted summation processing on the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data according to the weights, to obtain the capability scores of the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data.

[0118] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a first acquisition unit, configured to acquire access information and verification information representing multiple operational capabilities of the application layer in the first operational capability data; a first determination unit, configured to determine the second weights of the multiple operational capabilities and the third weights of the access information and verification information; a first calculation unit, configured to perform weighted summation processing on the access information according to the second weights to obtain a weighted summation result of the access information, and simultaneously perform weighted summation processing on the verification information according to the second weights to obtain a weighted summation result of the verification information; and an evaluation unit, configured to perform weighted summation processing on the weighted summation result of the access information and the weighted summation result of the verification information according to the third weights to obtain a first operational capability score of the first operational capability data.

[0119] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a second determining unit, used to determine the fourth weights of multiple technology stacks of the application system; and a second calculation unit, used to perform weighted processing on the information corresponding to the multiple technology stacks according to the fourth weights to obtain the second operational capability score corresponding to the second operational capability data.

[0120] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a third determining unit, used to determine the disaster recovery capability level based on the disaster recovery level in the disaster recovery construction capability data; a fourth determining unit, used to determine the disaster recovery construction method score based on the matching degree between the disaster recovery capability level and the disaster recovery construction method in the disaster recovery construction capability data; a fifth determining unit, used to determine the switching time score based on the matching degree between the switching time and the disaster recovery level and the disaster recovery construction method; and a third calculation unit, used to perform weighted processing on the disaster recovery capability level, the disaster recovery construction method score, and the switching time score to obtain the third operational capability score of the disaster recovery construction capability data.

[0121] Optionally, the first calculation submodule includes: a fourth calculation unit, which performs weighted processing on the deployment location information, resource information and scaling settings information of the application system to obtain the fourth operational capability score of the scaling capability data.

[0122] Optionally, the evaluation module includes: a second calculation submodule, which performs weighted summation on each ability score to obtain the overall ability score.

[0123] Optionally, the rating module includes: a mapping module that uses the overall capability score as an index to search in the capability score-capability level mapping relationship to obtain the emergency operation capability level, wherein the capability score-capability level mapping relationship is a pre-generated mapping relationship used to record the relationship between capability scores and capability levels.

[0124] According to one aspect of the present invention, an application system is provided, which uses the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system described above.

[0125] According to one aspect of the present invention, a processor is provided for running a program, wherein the program executes the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system described above.

[0126] According to one aspect of the present invention, a computer program product is provided, including computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are executed by a processor, an application system emergency operation capability processing method of any one of the above-described embodiments is performed. According to another aspect of the present invention, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, comprising a stored program, wherein when the program is executed by a processor, an application system emergency operation capability processing method of any one of the above-described embodiments is performed.

[0127] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium may be located in any computer terminal in a group of computer terminals in a computer network, or in any communication device in a group of communication devices.

[0128] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system, acquiring emergency operation capability data of the application system, wherein the emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data; scoring the emergency operation capability data to obtain a capability score; obtaining an overall capability score for the application system's emergency operation capability based on the capability score; determining the application system's emergency operation capability level based on the overall capability score; and improving the application system's emergency operation capability based on the emergency operation capability level.

[0129] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: determining a first weight for the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data; performing a weighted summation process on the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data according to the weights to obtain capability scores for the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data.

[0130] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: obtaining access information and authentication information representing multiple operational capabilities of the application layer in the first operational capability data; determining a second weight for the multiple operational capabilities, and determining a third weight for the access information and authentication information; performing weighted summation processing on the access information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result for the access information, and simultaneously performing weighted summation processing on the authentication information according to the second weight to obtain a weighted summation result for the authentication information; performing weighted summation processing on the weighted summation result for the access information and the weighted summation result for the authentication information according to the third weight to obtain a first operational capability score of the first operational capability data.

[0131] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: determining a fourth weight of multiple technology stacks of the application system; weighting the information corresponding to the multiple technology stacks according to the fourth weight to obtain a second operational capability score corresponding to the second operational capability data.

[0132] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: determining a disaster recovery capability level based on the disaster recovery level in the disaster recovery construction capability data; determining a disaster recovery construction method score based on the matching degree between the disaster recovery capability level and the disaster recovery construction method in the disaster recovery construction capability data; determining a switching time score based on the matching degree between the switching time and the disaster recovery level and the disaster recovery construction method; and performing weighted processing on the disaster recovery capability level, the disaster recovery construction method score, and the switching time score to obtain a third operational capability score of the disaster recovery construction capability data.

[0133] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: weighting the deployment location information, resource information, and scaling settings information of the application system to obtain a fourth operational capability score of the scaling capability data.

[0134] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: performing a weighted summation of each capability score to obtain an overall capability score.

[0135] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store program code for performing the following steps: using the overall capability score as an index, searching in the capability score-capability level mapping relationship to obtain the emergency operation capability level, wherein the capability score-capability level mapping relationship is a pre-generated mapping relationship used to record the relationship between capability scores and capability levels.

[0136] In the above embodiments of the present invention, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts not described in detail in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0137] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed technical content can be implemented in other ways. The device embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for example, the division of units can be a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the displayed or discussed mutual couplings, direct couplings, or communication connections may be through some interfaces; indirect couplings or communication connections between units or modules may be electrical or other forms.

[0138] The technical features of the above embodiments can be combined in any way. For the sake of brevity, not all possible combinations of the technical features in the above embodiments are described. However, as long as there is no contradiction in the combination of these technical features, they should be considered to be within the scope of this specification.

[0139] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0140] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of the present invention can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0141] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of the present invention. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), portable hard drives, magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0142] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention. It should be noted that for those skilled in the art, several improvements and modifications can be made without departing from the principle of the present invention, and these improvements and modifications should also be considered within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for handling emergency operation capabilities of an application system, characterized in that, include: Upon receiving an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of an application system, the emergency operation capability data of the application system is obtained. The emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and scaling capability data. The emergency operation capability data is scored to obtain a capability score for the emergency operation capability data; The overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained based on the capability score. The emergency operation capability level of the application system is determined based on the overall capability score. Improve the emergency operation capabilities of the application system based on the emergency operation capability level.

2. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The emergency operation capability data is scored to obtain a capability score for the emergency operation capability data, including: Determine the first weights for the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the expansion / shrinkage capability data; The first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data are weighted and summed according to the weights to obtain the capability scores of the first operational capability data, the second operational capability data, the disaster recovery construction capability data, and the scaling capability data.

3. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 2, characterized in that, The first operational capability data is scored, including: Obtain access information and verification information representing various operational capabilities of the application layer from the first operational capability data; A second weight is determined for the various operational capabilities, and a third weight is determined for the access information and the verification information; The access information is weighted and summed according to the second weight to obtain a weighted sum of access information. At the same time, the verification information is weighted and summed according to the second weight to obtain a weighted sum of verification information. The first operational capability score of the first operational capability data is obtained by performing a weighted summation process on the weighted summation result of the access information and the weighted summation result of the verification information according to the third weight.

4. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 2, characterized in that, The second operational capability data is scored, including: Determine the fourth weights of the multiple technology stacks of the application system; The information corresponding to the multiple technology stacks is weighted according to the fourth weight to obtain the second operational capability score corresponding to the second operational capability data.

5. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 2, characterized in that, The disaster recovery capability data is scored, including: The disaster recovery capability level is determined based on the disaster recovery level in the disaster recovery construction capability data. The disaster recovery construction method score is determined based on the degree of matching between the disaster recovery capability level and the disaster recovery construction method in the disaster recovery construction capability data. The switching time score is determined based on the degree of matching between the switching time and the disaster recovery level and the disaster recovery construction method. The disaster recovery capability level, the disaster recovery construction method score, and the switchover time score are weighted to obtain the third operational capability score of the disaster recovery construction capability data.

6. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 2, characterized in that, The scaling capability data is scored, including: The deployment location information, resource information, and scaling settings of the application system are weighted to obtain the fourth operational capability score of the scaling capability data.

7. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability is obtained based on the capability score, including: The overall capability score is obtained by weighted summation of the individual capability scores.

8. The emergency operation capability processing method for the application system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The emergency operation capability level of the application system is determined based on the overall capability score, including: Using the overall capability score as an index, a search is performed in the capability score-capability level mapping relationship to obtain the emergency operation capability level. The capability score-capability level mapping relationship is a pre-generated mapping relationship used to record the relationship between capability scores and capability levels.

9. An emergency operation capability processing device for an application system, characterized in that, include: The data acquisition module is used to acquire the emergency operation capability data of the application system when it receives an assessment request for the emergency operation capability of the application system. The emergency operation capability data includes: first operation capability data of the application layer, second operation capability data of the infrastructure layer, disaster recovery construction capability data, and expansion and contraction capability data. The scoring calculation module is used to score the emergency operation capability data and obtain the capability score of the emergency operation capability data; The evaluation module is used to obtain the overall capability score of the application system's emergency operation capability based on the capability score; The rating module is used to determine the emergency operation capability level of the application system based on the overall capability score; An improvement module is used to improve the emergency operation capabilities of the application system based on the emergency operation capability level.

10. An application system, characterized in that, The application system uses the emergency operation capability processing method of the application system as described in any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images