Decentralized Configuration Enforcement via Peer Comparison
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Ensuring consistent configurations among distributed computer systems is challenging, as existing methods require a central 'master' to compare and enforce configurations, making it difficult to detect and address changes or discrepancies in a timely manner, especially in cases of faults or security breaches.
Innovation Solution
A decentralized system where each computer system compares its configuration summary with a peer's, selected randomly or on any basis, and takes remedial steps to address inconsistencies, allowing for continuous monitoring and enforcement of configurations without a central orchestrator.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a centralized master system is used to compare and enforce configurations, then configuration consistency can be maintained, but the system complexity increases and response time to detect changes is delayed
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts the configuration enforcement function from each individual host and consolidates it into a dedicated configuration enforcement service. This service receives configuration data from hosts, determines enforcement actions, and sends commands back to hosts. By separating the enforcement logic from individual hosts and centralizing it in a dedicated service, the system maintains configuration consistency without requiring complex peer-to-peer comparison mechanisms on each host.
Solution Approach 2:
The configuration enforcement service acts as an intermediary between hosts and the configuration management system. Instead of hosts directly comparing configurations with each other or with a master system, they communicate through this intermediary service which handles the comparison logic and enforcement decisions. This mediator approach simplifies host architecture while maintaining centralized control over configuration consistency.
2Loss of time
If tooling processes are persistently run on each system to monitor configuration changes, then configuration discrepancies can be detected quickly, but the computational overhead and system resource consumption increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary configuration collection and comparison by having hosts send their configuration data to the enforcement service, which then determines what actions are needed before actual enforcement occurs. This preliminary assessment phase allows the system to identify configuration issues early without requiring continuous active monitoring on each host, reducing ongoing computational overhead while maintaining quick detection capability.
Solution Approach 2:
Instead of continuously monitoring configurations on each host, the system uses periodic configuration reporting where hosts send their configuration state to the enforcement service at scheduled intervals or upon specific events. This periodic approach reduces the computational burden on individual hosts compared to persistent continuous monitoring, while still enabling timely detection of configuration changes through the centralized service.
3Reliability
If a centralized master system orchestrates configuration comparisons, then configuration consistency is enforced, but the system becomes a single point of failure and response time increases
Solution Approach 1:
The configuration enforcement functionality is segmented into independent components: configuration collection on individual hosts, centralized determination logic in the enforcement service, and distributed execution of enforcement commands. This segmentation allows parallel processing where multiple hosts can simultaneously send configuration data and receive enforcement commands without blocking each other, improving response speed while maintaining centralized coordination for consistency.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically adapts its enforcement approach by having the configuration enforcement service determine the appropriate actions based on the specific configuration data received from each host. Rather than following a rigid centralized schedule, the service can prioritize certain hosts, adjust enforcement timing, and respond flexibly to different configuration scenarios, improving overall system responsiveness while maintaining configuration consistency through centralized decision-making.
Data Source
AI summary
The states or configurations of peer hosts within a host class may be analyzed and enforced by comparing records of the respective systems' states or configurations to one another and taking steps to address any inconsistencies between the records. In such a manner, the respective systems within the host class may identify, analyze and/or correct any changes in states or configurations of any of the systems, which may have been caused by a malfunction or security breach. The configurations may include one or more of a set of data, a version of a software application, a level of permission, a particular operational setting or any other element of operation. The hosts may be defined as peers based on a common location or a common function of each of the systems, or on any other basis, and the records may include any relevant data relating to the states or configurations of each of the systems.