Checkpointing algorithms and fault prediction

This paper deals with the impact of fault prediction techniques on checkpointing strategies. We extend the classical first-order analysis of Young and Daly in the presence of a fault prediction system, characterized by its recall and its precision. In this framework, we provide an optimal algorithm to decide when to take predictions into account, and we derive the optimal value of the checkpointing period. These results allow to analytically assess the key parameters that impact the performance of fault predictors at very large scale.Comment: Supported in part by ANR Rescue. Published in Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1207.693

Impact of fault prediction on checkpointing strategies

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.Comment: 20 page

Predictive Reliability and Fault Management in Exascale Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives

© ACM, 2020. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 53, No. 5, Article 95. Publication date: September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403956[EN] Performance and power constraints come together with Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor technology scaling in future Exascale systems. Technology scaling makes each individual transistor more prone to faults and, due to the exponential increase in the number of devices per chip, to higher system fault rates. Consequently, High-performance Computing (HPC) systems need to integrate prediction, detection, and recovery mechanisms to cope with faults efficiently. This article reviews fault detection, fault prediction, and recovery techniques in HPC systems, from electronics to system level. We analyze their strengths and limitations. Finally, we identify the promising paths to meet the reliability levels of Exascale systems.This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 (H2020) research and innovation program under the FET-HPC Grant Agreement No. 801137 (RECIPE). Jaume Abella was also partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under Contract No. TIN2015-65316-P and under Ramon y Cajal Postdoctoral Fellowship No. RYC-2013-14717, as well as by the HiPEAC Network of Excellence. Ramon Canal is partially supported by the Generalitat de Catalunya under Contract No. 2017SGR0962.Canal, R.; Hernández Luz, C.; Tornero-Gavilá, R.; Cilardo, A.; Massari, G.; Reghenzani, F.; Fornaciari, W.... (2020). Predictive Reliability and Fault Management in Exascale Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys. 53(5):1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403956S132535Abella, J., Hernandez, C., Quinones, E., Cazorla, F. J., Conmy, P. R., Azkarate-askasua, M., … Vardanega, T. (2015). WCET analysis methods: Pitfalls and challenges on their trustworthiness. 10th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES). doi:10.1109/sies.2015.7185039E. Agullo L. Giraud A. Guermouche J. Roman and M. Zounon. 2013. Towards resilient parallel linear Krylov solvers: Recover-restart strategies. INRIA Research Report RR-8324. E. Agullo L. Giraud A. Guermouche J. Roman and M. Zounon. 2013. Towards resilient parallel linear Krylov solvers: Recover-restart strategies. INRIA Research Report RR-8324.Agullo, E., Giraud, L., Salas, P., & Zounon, M. (2016). Interpolation-Restart Strategies for Resilient Eigensolvers. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38(5), C560-C583. doi:10.1137/15m1042115Al-Qawasmeh, A. M., Pasricha, S., Maciejewski, A. A., & Siegel, H. J. (2015). Power and Thermal-Aware Workload Allocation in Heterogeneous Data Centers. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 64(2), 477-491. doi:10.1109/tc.2013.116ARM. 2017. ARM Reliability Availability and Serviceability (RAS) Specification—ARMv8 for the ARMv8-A Architecture Profile. White paper. Retrieved from https://developer.arm.com/docs/ddi0587/latest. ARM. 2017. ARM Reliability Availability and Serviceability (RAS) Specification—ARMv8 for the ARMv8-A Architecture Profile. White paper. Retrieved from https://developer.arm.com/docs/ddi0587/latest.Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1), 11-33. doi:10.1109/tdsc.2004.2Bautista-Gomez, L., Zyulkyarov, F., Unsal, O., & McIntosh-Smith, S. (2016). Unprotected Computing: A Large-Scale Study of DRAM Raw Error Rate on a Supercomputer. SC16: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. doi:10.1109/sc.2016.54Berrocal, E., Bautista-Gomez, L., Di, S., Lan, Z., & Cappello, F. (2017). Toward General Software Level Silent Data Corruption Detection for Parallel Applications. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 28(12), 3642-3655. doi:10.1109/tpds.2017.2735971M.-A. Breuer and A. D. Friedman. 1976. Diagnosis 8 Reliable Design of Digital Systems. Springer. M.-A. Breuer and A. D. Friedman. 1976. Diagnosis 8 Reliable Design of Digital Systems. Springer.P. Bridges K. Ferreira M. Heroux and M. Hoemmen. 2012. Fault-tolerant linear solvers via selective reliability. ArXiv e-prints June 2012. arXiv:1206.1390 [math.NA]. P. Bridges K. Ferreira M. Heroux and M. Hoemmen. 2012. Fault-tolerant linear solvers via selective reliability. ArXiv e-prints June 2012. arXiv:1206.1390 [math.NA].F. Cappello A. Geist W. Gropp S. Kale B. Kramer and M. Snir. 2014. Toward exascale resilience: 2014 update. Supercomput. Front. Innovat. 1 1 (2014). http://superfri.org/superfri/article/view/14. F. Cappello A. Geist W. Gropp S. Kale B. Kramer and M. Snir. 2014. Toward exascale resilience: 2014 update. Supercomput. Front. Innovat. 1 1 (2014). http://superfri.org/superfri/article/view/14.F. J. Cazorla L. Kosmidis E. Mezzetti C. Hernandez J. Abella and T. Vardanega. 2019. Probabilistic worst-case timing analysis: Taxonomy and comprehensive survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 52 1 Article 14 (Feb. 2019) 35 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3301283 F. J. Cazorla L. Kosmidis E. Mezzetti C. Hernandez J. Abella and T. Vardanega. 2019. Probabilistic worst-case timing analysis: Taxonomy and comprehensive survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 52 1 Article 14 (Feb. 2019) 35 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3301283Chan, C. S., Pan, B., Gross, K., Vaidyanathan, K., & Rosing, T. Š. (2014). Correcting vibration-induced performance degradation in enterprise servers. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 41(3), 83-88. doi:10.1145/2567529.2567555Chantem, T., Hu, X. S., & Dick, R. P. (2011). Temperature-Aware Scheduling and Assignment for Hard Real-Time Applications on MPSoCs. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 19(10), 1884-1897. doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2010.2058873Chen, M. Y., Kiciman, E., Fratkin, E., Fox, A., & Brewer, E. (s. f.). Pinpoint: problem determination in large, dynamic Internet services. Proceedings International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. doi:10.1109/dsn.2002.1029005Chen, Z. (2011). Algorithm-based recovery for iterative methods without checkpointing. Proceedings of the 20th international symposium on High performance distributed computing - HPDC ’11. doi:10.1145/1996130.1996142Chen, Z. (2013). Online-ABFT. Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming - PPoPP ’13. doi:10.1145/2442516.2442533Coskun, A. K., Rosing, T. S., Mihic, K., De Micheli, G., & Leblebici, Y. (2006). Analysis and Optimization of MPSoC Reliability. Journal of Low Power Electronics, 2(1), 56-69. doi:10.1166/jolpe.2006.007G. Da Costa A. Oleksiak W. Piatek J. Salom and L. Sisó. 2015. Minimization of costs and energy consumption in a data center by a workload-based capacity management. In Energy Efficient Data Centers S. Klingert M. Chinnici and M. Rey Porto (Eds.). Springer International Publishing Cham 102--119. G. Da Costa A. Oleksiak W. Piatek J. Salom and L. Sisó. 2015. Minimization of costs and energy consumption in a data center by a workload-based capacity management. In Energy Efficient Data Centers S. Klingert M. Chinnici and M. Rey Porto (Eds.). Springer International Publishing Cham 102--119.Cupertino, L., Da Costa, G., Oleksiak, A., Pia¸tek, W., Pierson, J.-M., Salom, J., … Zilio, T. (2015). Energy-efficient, thermal-aware modeling and simulation of data centers: The CoolEmAll approach and evaluation results. Ad Hoc Networks, 25, 535-553. doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2014.11.002Dally, W. J. (1991). Express cubes: improving the performance of k-ary n-cube interconnection networks. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 40(9), 1016-1023. doi:10.1109/12.83652Dauwe, D., Pasricha, S., Maciejewski, A. A., & Siegel, H. J. (2018). Resilience-Aware Resource Management for Exascale Computing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, 3(4), 332-345. doi:10.1109/tsusc.2018.2797890R. I. Davis and A. Burns. 2011. A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 43 4 Article 35 (Oct. 2011) 44 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978802.1978814 R. I. Davis and A. Burns. 2011. A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 43 4 Article 35 (Oct. 2011) 44 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978802.1978814Di, S., & Cappello, F. (2016). Adaptive Impact-Driven Detection of Silent Data Corruption for HPC Applications. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 27(10), 2809-2823. doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2517639Di, S., Guo, H., Gupta, R., Pershey, E. R., Snir, M., & Cappello, F. (2019). Exploring Properties and Correlations of Fatal Events in a Large-Scale HPC System. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 30(2), 361-374. doi:10.1109/tpds.2018.2864184Di, S., Robert, Y., Vivien, F., & Cappello, F. (2017). Toward an Optimal Online Checkpoint Solution under a Two-Level HPC Checkpoint Model. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 28(1), 244-259. doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2546248J. Dongarra T. Herault and Y. Robert. 2015. Fault Tolerance Techniques for High-Performance Computing. Springer. J. Dongarra T. Herault and Y. Robert. 2015. Fault Tolerance Techniques for High-Performance Computing. Springer.DOWNING, S., & SOCIE, D. (1982). Simple rainflow counting algorithms. International Journal of Fatigue, 4(1), 31-40. doi:10.1016/0142-1123(82)90018-4Eghbalkhah, B., Kamal, M., Afzali-Kusha, H., Afzali-Kusha, A., Ghaznavi-Ghoushchi, M. B., & Pedram, M. (2015). Workload and temperature dependent evaluation of BTI-induced lifetime degradation in digital circuits. Microelectronics Reliability, 55(8), 1152-1162. doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2015.06.004Gottscho, M., Shoaib, M., Govindan, S., Sharma, B., Wang, D., & Gupta, P. (2017). Measuring the Impact of Memory Errors on Application  Performance. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, 16(1), 51-55. doi:10.1109/lca.2016.2599513Greenberg, A., Hamilton, J. R., Jain, N., Kandula, S., Kim, C., Lahiri, P., … Sengupta, S. (2011). VL2. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 95-104. doi:10.1145/1897852.1897877Heroux, M. A., Bartlett, R. A., Howle, V. E., Hoekstra, R. J., Hu, J. J., Kolda, T. G., … Stanley, K. S. (2005). An overview of the Trilinos project. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 31(3), 397-423. doi:10.1145/1089014.1089021Hoffmann, G. A., Trivedi, K. S., & Malek, M. (2007). A Best Practice Guide to Resource Forecasting for Computing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 56(4), 615-628. doi:10.1109/tr.2007.909764Hsiao, M. Y., Carter, W. C., Thomas, J. W., & Stringfellow, W. R. (1981). Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability of IBM Computer Systems: A Quarter Century of Progress. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 25(5), 453-468. doi:10.1147/rd.255.0453Hughes, G. F., Murray, J. F., Kreutz-Delgado, K., & Elkan, C. (2002). Improved disk-drive failure warnings. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51(3), 350-357. doi:10.1109/tr.2002.802886S. Hukerikar and C. Engelmann. 2017. Resilience design patterns: A structured approach to resilience at extreme scale. Supercomput. Front. Innov. 4 3 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.14529/jsfi170301 S. Hukerikar and C. Engelmann. 2017. Resilience design patterns: A structured approach to resilience at extreme scale. Supercomput. Front. Innov. 4 3 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.14529/jsfi170301Hussain, H., Malik, S. U. R., Hameed, A., Khan, S. U., Bickler, G., Min-Allah, N., … Rayes, A. (2013). A survey on resource allocation in high performance distributed computing systems. Parallel Computing, 39(11), 709-736. doi:10.1016/j.parco.2013.09.009Intel Corporation. [n.d.]. Intel Xeon Processor E7 Family: Reliability Availability and Serviceability. White paper. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-e7-family-ras-server-paper.html. Intel Corporation. [n.d.]. Intel Xeon Processor E7 Family: Reliability Availability and Serviceability. White paper. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-e7-family-ras-server-paper.html.Jha, S., Formicola, V., Martino, C. D., Dalton, M., Kramer, W. T., Kalbarczyk, Z., & Iyer, R. K. (2018). Resiliency of HPC Interconnects: A Case Study of Interconnect Failures and Recovery in Blue Waters. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 15(6), 915-930. doi:10.1109/tdsc.2017.2737537Kiciman, E., & Fox, A. (2005). Detecting Application-Level Failures in Component-Based Internet Services. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 16(5), 1027-1041. doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.853411Kim, T., Sun, Z., Cook, C., Zhao, H., Li, R., Wong, D., & Tan, S. X.-D. (2016). Invited - Cross-layer modeling and optimization for electromigration induced reliability. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Design Automation Conference. doi:10.1145/2897937.2905010Kurowski, K., Oleksiak, A., Piątek, W., Piontek, T., Przybyszewski, A., & Węglarz, J. (2013). DCworms – A tool for simulation of energy efficiency in distributed computing infrastructures. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 39, 135-151. doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2013.08.007Langou, J., Chen, Z., Bosilca, G., & Dongarra, J. (2008). Recovery Patterns for Iterative Methods in a Parallel Unstable Environment. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 30(1), 102-116. doi:10.1137/040620394J. C. Laprie (Ed.). 1995. Dependability—Its Attributes Impairments and Means. Springer-Verlag Berlin. J. C. Laprie (Ed.). 1995. Dependability—Its Attributes Impairments and Means. Springer-Verlag Berlin.Laprie, J.-C. (s. f.). DEPENDABLE COMPUTING AND FAULT TOLERANCE : CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY. Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, 1995, ’ Highlights from Twenty-Five Years’. doi:10.1109/ftcsh.1995.532603Lasance, C. J. M. (2003). Thermally driven reliability issues in microelectronic systems: status-quo and challenges. Microelectronics Reliability, 43(12), 1969-1974. doi:10.1016/s0026-2714(03)00183-5Yinglung Liang, Yanyong Zhang, Sivasubramaniam, A., Jette, M., & Sahoo, R. (s. f.). BlueGene/L Failure Analysis and Prediction Models. International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’06). doi:10.1109/dsn.2006.18Lin, T.-T. Y., & Siewiorek, D. P. (1990). Error log analysis: statistical modeling and heuristic trend analysis. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 39(4), 419-432. doi:10.1109/24.58720Losada, N., González, P., Martín, M. J., Bosilca, G., Bouteiller, A., & Teranishi, K. (2020). Fault tolerance of MPI applications in exascale systems: The ULFM solution. Future Generation Computer Systems, 106, 467-481. doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.01.026Lyons, R. E., & Vanderkulk, W. (1962). The Use of Triple-Modular Redundancy to Improve Computer Reliability. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 6(2), 200-209. doi:10.1147/rd.62.0200M. Médard and S. S. Lumetta. 2003. Network Reliability and Fault Tolerance. American Cancer Society. Retrieved from arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471219282.eot281. M. Médard and S. S. Lumetta. 2003. Network Reliability and Fault Tolerance. American Cancer Society. Retrieved from arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471219282.eot281.Moody, A., Bronevetsky, G., Mohror, K., & de Supinski, B. (2010). Detailed Modeling, Design, and Evaluation of a Scalable Multi-level Checkpointing System. doi:10.2172/984082Moor Insights 8 Strategy. 2017. AMD EPYC Brings New RAS Capability. White paper. Retrieved from https://www.amd.com/system/files/2017-06/AMD-EPYC-Brings-New-RAS-Capability.pdf. Moor Insights 8 Strategy. 2017. AMD EPYC Brings New RAS Capability. White paper. Retrieved from https://www.amd.com/system/files/2017-06/AMD-EPYC-Brings-New-RAS-Capability.pdf.Mulas, F., Atienza, D., Acquaviva, A., Carta, S., Benini, L., & De Micheli, G. (2009). Thermal Balancing Policy for Multiprocessor Stream Computing Platforms. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 28(12), 1870-1882. doi:10.1109/tcad.2009.2032372Oleksiak, A., Kierzynka, M., Piatek, W., Agosta, G., Barenghi, A., Brandolese, C., … Janssen, U. (2017). M2DC – Modular Microserver DataCentre with heterogeneous hardware. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 52, 117-130. doi:10.1016/j.micpro.2017.05.019Oxley, M. A., Jonardi, E., Pasricha, S., Maciejewski, A. A., Siegel, H. J., Burns, P. J., & Koenig, G. A. (2018). Rate-based thermal, power, and co-location aware resource management for heterogeneous data centers. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 112, 126-139. doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.04.015K. O’brien I. Pietri R. Reddy A. Lastovetsky and R. Sakellariou. 2017. A survey of power and energy predictive models in HPC systems and applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 50 3 Article 37 (June 2017) 38 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078811 K. O’brien I. Pietri R. Reddy A. Lastovetsky and R. Sakellariou. 2017. A survey of power and energy predictive models in HPC systems and applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 50 3 Article 37 (June 2017) 38 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078811Park, S.-M., & Humphrey, M. (2011). Predictable High-Performance Computing Using Feedback Control and Admission Control. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22(3), 396-411. doi:10.1109/tpds.2010.100Pfefferman, J. D., & Cernuschi-Frias, B. (2002). A nonparametric nonstationary procedure for failure prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51(4), 434-442. doi:10.1109/tr.2002.804733Rangan, K. K., Wei, G.-Y., & Brooks, D. (2009). Thread motion. ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 37(3), 302-313. doi:10.1145/1555815.1555793Paolo Rech. [n.d.]. Reliability Issues in Current and Future Supercomputers. Retrieved from http://energysfe.ufsc.br/slides/Paolo-Rech-260917.pdf. Paolo Rech. [n.d.]. Reliability Issues in Current and Future Supercomputers. Retrieved from http://energysfe.ufsc.br/slides/Paolo-Rech-260917.pdf.F. Reghenzani G. Massari and W. Fornaciari. 2019. The real-time Linux kernel: A survey on PREEMPT_RT. Comput. Surveys 52 1 Article 18 (Feb. 2019) 36 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297714 F. Reghenzani G. Massari and W. Fornaciari. 2019. The real-time Linux kernel: A survey on PREEMPT_RT. Comput. Surveys 52 1 Article 18 (Feb. 2019) 36 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297714F. Salfner M. Lenk and M. Malek. 2010. A survey of online failure prediction methods. ACM Comput. Surv. 42 3 Article 10 (March 2010) 42 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1670679.1670680 F. Salfner M. Lenk and M. Malek. 2010. A survey of online failure prediction methods. ACM Comput. Surv. 42 3 Article 10 (March 2010) 42 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1670679.1670680Salfner, F., Schieschke, M., & Malek, M. (2006). Predicting failures of computer systems: a case study for a telecommunication system. Proceedings 20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium. doi:10.1109/ipdps.2006.1639672Shi, L., Chen, H., Sun, J., & Li, K. (2012). vCUDA: GPU-Accelerated High-Performance Computing in Virtual Machines. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 61(6), 804-816. doi:10.1109/tc.2011.112D. P. Siewiorek and R. S. Swarz. 1998. Reliable Computer Systems 3rd ed. A. K. Peters Ltd. D. P. Siewiorek and R. S. Swarz. 1998. Reliable Computer Systems 3rd ed. A. K. Peters Ltd.Singh, S., & Chana, I. (2016). A Survey on Resource Scheduling in Cloud Computing: Issues and Challenges. Journal of Grid Computing, 14(2), 217-264. doi:10.1007/s10723-015-9359-2Slegel, T. J., Averill, R. M., Check, M. A., Giamei, B. C., Krumm, B. W., Krygowski, C. A., … Webb, C. F. (1999). IBM’s S/390 G5 microprocessor design. IEEE Micro, 19(2), 12-23. doi:10.1109/40.755464Sridhar, A., Sabry, M. M., & Atienza, D. (2014). A Semi-Analytical Thermal Modeling Framework for Liquid-Cooled ICs. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 33(8), 1145-1158. doi:10.1109/tcad.2014.2323194Sridharan, V., DeBardeleben, N., Blanchard, S., Ferreira, K. B., Stearley, J., Shalf, J., & Gurumurthi, S. (2015). Memory Errors in Modern Systems. ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 43(1), 297-310. doi:10.1145/2786763.2694348Stathis, J. H. (2018). The physics of NBTI: What do we really know? 2018 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium (IRPS). doi:10.1109/irps.2018.8353539Stellner, G. (s. f.). CoCheck: checkpointing and process migration for MPI. Proceedings of International Conference on Parallel Processing. doi:10.1109/ipps.1996.508106Stone, J. E., Gohara, D., & Shi, G. (2010). OpenCL: A Parallel Programming Standard for Heterogeneous Computing Systems. Computing in Science & Engineering, 12(3), 66-73. doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.69Subasi, O., Di, S., Bautista-Gomez, L., Balaprakash, P., Unsal, O., Labarta, J., … Cappello, F. (2018). Exploring the capabilities of support vector machines in detecting silent data corruptions. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 19, 277-290. doi:10.1016/j.suscom.2018.01.004Tang, D., & Iyer, R. K. (1993). Dependability measurement and modeling of a multicomputer system. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 42(1), 62-75. doi:10.1109/12.192214D. Turnbull and N. Alldrin. 2003. Failure Prediction in Hardware Systems. Tech. rep. University of California San Diego CA. Retrieved from http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/ dturnbul/Papers/ServerPrediction.pdf. D. Turnbull and N. Alldrin. 2003. Failure Prediction in Hardware Systems. Tech. rep. University of California San Diego CA. Retrieved from http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/ dturnbul/Papers/ServerPrediction.pdf.Vilalta, R., Apte, C. V., Hellerstein, J. L., Ma, S., & Weiss, S. M. (2002). Predictive algorithms in the management of computer systems. IBM Systems Journal, 41(3), 461-474. doi:10.1147/sj.413.0461Vinoski, S. (2007). Reliability with Erlang. IEEE Internet Com

Resource Allocation in Vehicular Cloud Computing

Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of Cloud Computing, a paradigm shift adopted by information technology (IT) companies with a large installed infrastructure base that often goes under-utilized. The unmistakable appeal of cloud computing is that it provides scalable access to computing resources and to a multitude of IT services. Cloud computing and cloud IT services have seen and continue to see a phenomenal adoption rate around the world. Recently, Professor Olariu and his coworkers through series of research introduced a new concept, Vehicular Cloud Computing. A Vehicular Cloud (VC) is a network of vehicles in a parking lot that can provide computation services to users. In this model each vehicle is a computation node. Some of the applications of a VC include a datacenter at the airport, a data cloud in a parking lot, and a datacenter at the mall. The defining difference between vehicular and conventional clouds lies in the distributed ownership and, consequently, the unpredictable availability of computational resources. As cars enter and leave the parking lot, new computational resources become available while others depart, creating a dynamic environment where the task of efficiently assigning jobs to cars becomes very challenging. Our main contribution is a number of scheduling and fault-tolerant job assignment strategies, based on redundancy, that mitigate the effect of resource volatility in vehicular clouds. We offer a theoretical analysis of the expected job completion time in the case where cars do not leave during a checkpoint operation and also in the case where cars may leave while checkpointing is in progress, leading to system failure. A comprehensive set of simulations have shown that our theoretical predictions are accurate. We considered two different environments for scheduling strategy: deterministic and stochastic. In a deterministic environment the arrival and departure of cars are known. This scenario is for environments like universities where employees should be present at work with known schedules and the university rents out its employees\u27 cars as computation nodes to provide services as a vehicular cloud. We presented a scheduling model for a vehicular cloud based on mixed integer linear programming. This work investigates a job scheduling problem involving non-preemptive tasks with known processing time where job migration is allowed. Assigning a job to resources is valid if the job has been executed fully and continuously (no interruption). A job cannot be executed in parallel. In our approach, the determination of an optimal job schedule can be formulated as maximizing the utilization of VC and minimizing the number of job migrations. Utilization can be calculated as a time period that vehicles have been used as computation resources. For dynamic environment in terms of resource availability, we presented a stochastic model for job assignment. We proposed to make job assignment in VC fault tolerant by using a variant of the checkpointing strategy. Rather than saving the state of the computation, at regular times, the state of the computation is only recorded as needed. Also, since we do not assume a central server that stores checkpointed images, like conventional cloud providers do, in our strategy checkpointing is performed by a car and the resulting image is stored by the car itself. Once the car leaves, the image is lost. We consider two scenarios: in the first one, cars do not leave during checkpointing; in the second one, cars may leave during checkpointing, leading to system failure. Our main contribution is to offer theoretical predictions of the job execution time in both scenarios mentioned above. A comprehensive set of simulations have shown that our theoretical predictions are accurate

Fail Over Strategy for Fault Tolerance in Cloud Computing Environment

YesCloud fault tolerance is an important issue in cloud computing platforms and applications. In the event of an unexpected system failure or malfunction, a robust fault-tolerant design may allow the cloud to continue functioning correctly possibly at a reduced level instead of failing completely. To ensure high availability of critical cloud services, the application execution and hardware performance, various fault tolerant techniques exist for building self-autonomous cloud systems. In comparison to current approaches, this paper proposes a more robust and reliable architecture using optimal checkpointing strategy to ensure high system availability and reduced system task service finish time. Using pass rates and virtualised mechanisms, the proposed Smart Failover Strategy (SFS) scheme uses components such as Cloud fault manager, Cloud controller, Cloud load balancer and a selection mechanism, providing fault tolerance via redundancy, optimized selection and checkpointing. In our approach, the Cloud fault manager repairs faults generated before the task time deadline is reached, blocking unrecoverable faulty nodes as well as their virtual nodes. This scheme is also able to remove temporary software faults from recoverable faulty nodes, thereby making them available for future request. We argue that the proposed SFS algorithm makes the system highly fault tolerant by considering forward and backward recovery using diverse software tools. Compared to existing approaches, preliminary experiment of the SFS algorithm indicate an increase in pass rates and a consequent decrease in failure rates, showing an overall good performance in task allocations. We present these results using experimental validation tools with comparison to other techniques, laying a foundation for a fully fault tolerant IaaS Cloud environment

Energy-efficient checkpointing in high-throughput cycle-stealing distributed systems

Checkpointing is a fault-tolerance mechanism commonly used in High Throughput Computing (HTC) environments to allow the execution of long-running computational tasks on compute resources subject to hardware or software failures as well as interruptions from resource owners and more important tasks. Until recently many researchers have focused on the performance gains achieved through checkpointing, but now with growing scrutiny of the energy consumption of IT infrastructures it is increasingly important to understand the energy impact of checkpointing within an HTC environment. In this paper we demonstrate through trace-driven simulation of real-world datasets that existing checkpointing strategies are inadequate at maintaining an acceptable level of energy consumption whilst maintaing the performance gains expected with checkpointing. Furthermore, we identify factors important in deciding whether to exploit checkpointing within an HTC environment, and propose novel strategies to curtail the energy consumption of checkpointing approaches whist maintaining the performance benefits

Towards Efficient Abstractions for Concurrent Consensus

Consensus is an often occurring problem in concurrent and distributed programming. We present a programming language with simple semantics and build-in support for consensus in the form of communicating transactions. We motivate the need for such a construct with a characteristic example of generalized consensus which can be naturally encoded in our language. We then focus on the challenges in achieving an implementation that can efficiently run such programs. We setup an architecture to evaluate different implementation alternatives and use it to experimentally evaluate runtime heuristics. This is the basis for a research project on realistic programming language support for consensus.Comment: 15 pages, 5 figures, symposium: TFP 201

A proactive fault tolerance framework for high performance computing (HPC) systems in the cloud

High Performance Computing (HPC) systems have been widely used by scientists and researchers in both industry and university laboratories to solve advanced computation problems. Most advanced computation problems are either data-intensive or computation-intensive. They may take hours, days or even weeks to complete execution. For example, some of the traditional HPC systems computations run on 100,000 processors for weeks. Consequently traditional HPC systems often require huge capital investments. As a result, scientists and researchers sometimes have to wait in long queues to access shared, expensive HPC systems. Cloud computing, on the other hand, offers new computing paradigms, capacity, and flexible solutions for both business and HPC applications. Some of the computation-intensive applications that are usually executed in traditional HPC systems can now be executed in the cloud. Cloud computing price model eliminates huge capital investments. However, even for cloud-based HPC systems, fault tolerance is still an issue of growing concern. The large number of virtual machines and electronic components, as well as software complexity and overall system reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS), are factors with which HPC systems in the cloud must contend. The reactive fault tolerance approach of checkpoint/restart, which is commonly used in HPC systems, does not scale well in the cloud due to resource sharing and distributed systems networks. Hence, the need for reliable fault tolerant HPC systems is even greater in a cloud environment. In this thesis we present a proactive fault tolerance approach to HPC systems in the cloud to reduce the wall-clock execution time, as well as dollar cost, in the presence of hardware failure. We have developed a generic fault tolerance algorithm for HPC systems in the cloud. We have further developed a cost model for executing computation-intensive applications on HPC systems in the cloud. Our experimental results obtained from a real cloud execution environment show that the wall-clock execution time and cost of running computation-intensive applications in the cloud can be considerably reduced compared to checkpoint and redundancy techniques used in traditional HPC systems

Reliability -aware optimal checkpoint /restart model in high performance computing

Computational power demand for large challenging problems has increasingly driven the physical size of High Performance Computing (HPC) systems. As the system gets larger, it requires more and more components (processor, memory, disk, switch, power supply and so on). Thus, challenges arise in handling reliability of such large-scale systems. In order to minimize the performance loss due to unexpected failures, fault tolerant mechanisms are vital to sustain computational power in such environment. Checkpoint/restart is a common fault tolerant technique which has been widely applied in the single computer system. However, checkpointing in a large-scale HPC environment is much more challenging due to complexity, coordination, and timing issues. In this dissertation, we present a reliability-aware method for an optimal checkpoint/restart strategy. Our scheme aims to address the fault tolerance challenge, especially in a large-scale HPC system, by providing optimal checkpoint placement techniques derived from the actual system reliability. Unlike existing checkpoint models, which can only handle Poisson failure and a constant checkpoint interval, our model can perform a varying checkpoint interval and deal with different failure distributions. In addition, the approach considers optimality for both checkpoint overhead and rollback time. Our validation results suggest a significant improvement over existing techniques