This paper deals with the impact of fault prediction techniques on checkpointing strategies. We extend the classical analysis of Young and Daly in the presence of a fault prediction system, which is characterized by its recall and its precision, and which provides either exact or window-based time predictions. We succeed in deriving the optimal value of the checkpointing period (thereby minimizing the waste of resource usage due to checkpoint overhead) in all scenarios. These results allow to analytically assess the key parameters that impact the performance of fault predictors at very large scale. In addition, the results of this analytical evaluation are nicely corroborated by a comprehensive set of simulations, thereby demonstrating the validity of the model and the accuracy of the results.
While many studies on fault prediction focus on the conception of the predictor, most of them consider that the proactive action should simply be a checkpoint or a migration right in time before the fault. However, in their paper @cite_10 , consider the mathematical problem to determine when and how to migrate. In order to be able to use migration, they stated that at every time, 2 -based heuristic. Thanks to their algorithm, they were able to save 30 compared to an heuristic that does not take the reliability into account, with a precision and recall of 70 Finally, to the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to focus on the mathematical aspect of fault prediction, and to provide a model and a detailed analysis of the waste due to all three types of events (true and false predictions and unpredicted failures).
@cite_10
2344277659 1975040830 2137512117 2141676918
We consider the problem of identifying the source of failure in a network after receiving alarms or having observed symptoms. To locate the root cause accurately and timely in a large communication system is challenging because a single fault can often result in a large number of alarms, and multiple faults can occur concurrently. In this paper, we present a new fault localization method using a machine-learning approach. We propose to use logistic regression to study the correlation among network events based on end-to-end measurements. Then based on the regression model, we develop fault hypothesis that best explains the observed symptoms. Unlike previous work, the machine-learning algorithm requires neither the knowledge of dependencies among network events, nor the probabilities of faults, nor the conditional probabilities of fault propagation as input. The “low requirement” feature makes it suitable for large complex networks where accurate dependencies and prior probabilities are difficult to obtain. We then evaluate the performance of the learning algorithm with respect to the accuracy of fault hypothesis and the concentration property. Experimental results and theoretical analysis both show satisfactory performance. This paper describes a study performed in an industrial setting that attempts to build predictive models to identify parts of a Java system with a high fault probability. The system under consideration is constantly evolving as several releases a year are shipped to customers. Developers usually have limited resources for their testing and would like to devote extra resources to faulty system parts. The main research focus of this paper is to systematically assess three aspects on how to build and evaluate fault-proneness models in the context of this large Java legacy system development project: (1) compare many data mining and machine learning techniques to build fault-proneness models, (2) assess the impact of using different metric sets such as source code structural measures and change fault history (process measures), and (3) compare several alternative ways of assessing the performance of the models, in terms of (i) confusion matrix criteria such as accuracy and precision recall, (ii) ranking ability, using the receiver operating characteristic area (ROC), and (iii) our proposed cost-effectiveness measure (CE). The results of the study indicate that the choice of fault-proneness modeling technique has limited impact on the resulting classification accuracy or cost-effectiveness. There is however large differences between the individual metric sets in terms of cost-effectiveness, and although the process measures are among the most expensive ones to collect, including them as candidate measures significantly improves the prediction models compared with models that only include structural measures and or their deltas between releases - both in terms of ROC area and in terms of CE. Further, we observe that what is considered the best model is highly dependent on the criteria that are used to evaluate and compare the models. And the regular confusion matrix criteria, although popular, are not clearly related to the problem at hand, namely the cost-effectiveness of using fault-proneness prediction models to focus verification efforts to deliver software with less faults at less cost. As the failure frequency is increasing with the components count in modern and future supercomputers, resilience is becoming critical for extreme scale systems. The association of failure prediction with proactive checkpointing seeks to reduce the effect of failures in the execution time of parallel applications. Unfortunately, proactive checkpointing does not systematically avoid restarting from scratch. To mitigate this issue, failure prediction and proactive checkpointing can be coupled with periodic checkpointing. However, blind use of these techniques does not always improves system efficiency, because everyone of them comes with a mix of overheads and benefits. In order to study and understand the combination of these techniques and their improvement in the system's efficiency, we developed: (i) a prototype combining state of the art failure prediction, fast proactive checkpointing and preventive checkpointing; (ii) a mathematical model that reflects the expected computing efficiency of the combination and computes the optimal checkpointing interval in this context; (iii) a discrete event simulator to evaluate the computing efficiency of the combination for system parameters corresponding to the current and projected large scale HPC systems. We evaluate our proposed technique on a large supercomputer (i.e. TSUBAME2) with production-level HPC applications and we show that failure prediction, proactive and preventive checkpointing can be coupled successfully, imposing only about 2 to 6 of overhead in comparison with preventive checkpointing only. Moreover, our model-based simulations show that the optimal solution improves the computing efficiency up to 30 in comparison with classic periodic checkpointing. We show that the prediction recall has a much higher impact on execution efficiency than the prediction precision. This result suggests that researchers on failure prediction algorithms should focus on improving the recall. We also show that the combination of these techniques can significantly improve (by a factor 2, for a particular configuration) the mean time between failures (MTBF) perceived by the application. To facilitate proactive fault management in large-scale systems such as IBM Blue Gene P, online failure prediction is of paramount importance. While many techniques have been presented for online failure prediction, questions arise regarding two commonly used approaches: period-based and event-driven. Which one has better accuracy? What is the best observation window (i.e., the time interval used to collect evidence before making a prediction)? How does the lead time (i.e., the time interval from the prediction to the failure occurrence) impact prediction arruracy? To answer these questions, we analyze and compare period-based and event-driven prediction approaches via a Bayesian prediction model. We evaluate these prediction approaches, under a variety of testing parameters, by means of RAS logs collected from a production supercomputer at Argonne National Laboratory. Experimental results show that the period-based Bayesian model and the event-driven Bayesian model can achieve up to 65.0 and 83.8 prediction accuracy, respectively. Furthermore, our sensitivity study indicates that the event-driven approach seems more suitable for proactive fault management in large-scale systems like Blue Gene P.