Experimental analysis of computer system dependability

This paper reviews an area which has evolved over the past 15 years: experimental analysis of computer system dependability. Methodologies and advances are discussed for three basic approaches used in the area: simulated fault injection, physical fault injection, and measurement-based analysis. The three approaches are suited, respectively, to dependability evaluation in the three phases of a system's life: design phase, prototype phase, and operational phase. Before the discussion of these phases, several statistical techniques used in the area are introduced. For each phase, a classification of research methods or study topics is outlined, followed by discussion of these methods or topics as well as representative studies. The statistical techniques introduced include the estimation of parameters and confidence intervals, probability distribution characterization, and several multivariate analysis methods. Importance sampling, a statistical technique used to accelerate Monte Carlo simulation, is also introduced. The discussion of simulated fault injection covers electrical-level, logic-level, and function-level fault injection methods as well as representative simulation environments such as FOCUS and DEPEND. The discussion of physical fault injection covers hardware, software, and radiation fault injection methods as well as several software and hybrid tools including FIAT, FERARI, HYBRID, and FINE. The discussion of measurement-based analysis covers measurement and data processing techniques, basic error characterization, dependency analysis, Markov reward modeling, software-dependability, and fault diagnosis. The discussion involves several important issues studies in the area, including fault models, fast simulation techniques, workload/failure dependency, correlated failures, and software fault tolerance

Tensor Computation: A New Framework for High-Dimensional Problems in EDA

Many critical EDA problems suffer from the curse of dimensionality, i.e. the very fast-scaling computational burden produced by large number of parameters and/or unknown variables. This phenomenon may be caused by multiple spatial or temporal factors (e.g. 3-D field solvers discretizations and multi-rate circuit simulation), nonlinearity of devices and circuits, large number of design or optimization parameters (e.g. full-chip routing/placement and circuit sizing), or extensive process variations (e.g. variability/reliability analysis and design for manufacturability). The computational challenges generated by such high dimensional problems are generally hard to handle efficiently with traditional EDA core algorithms that are based on matrix and vector computation. This paper presents "tensor computation" as an alternative general framework for the development of efficient EDA algorithms and tools. A tensor is a high-dimensional generalization of a matrix and a vector, and is a natural choice for both storing and solving efficiently high-dimensional EDA problems. This paper gives a basic tutorial on tensors, demonstrates some recent examples of EDA applications (e.g., nonlinear circuit modeling and high-dimensional uncertainty quantification), and suggests further open EDA problems where the use of tensor computation could be of advantage.Comment: 14 figures. Accepted by IEEE Trans. CAD of Integrated Circuits and System

Interval simulation: raising the level of abstraction in architectural simulation

Detailed architectural simulators suffer from a long development cycle and extremely long evaluation times. This longstanding problem is further exacerbated in the multi-core processor era. Existing solutions address the simulation problem by either sampling the simulated instruction stream or by mapping the simulation models on FPGAs; these approaches achieve substantial simulation speedups while simulating performance in a cycle-accurate manner This paper proposes interval simulation which rakes a completely different approach: interval simulation raises the level of abstraction and replaces the core-level cycle-accurate simulation model by a mechanistic analytical model. The analytical model estimates core-level performance by analyzing intervals, or the timing between two miss events (branch mispredictions and TLB/cache misses); the miss events are determined through simulation of the memory hierarchy, cache coherence protocol, interconnection network and branch predictor By raising the level of abstraction, interval simulation reduces both development time and evaluation time. Our experimental results using the SPEC CPU2000 and PARSEC benchmark suites and the MS multi-core simulator show good accuracy up to eight cores (average error of 4.6% and max error of 11% for the multi-threaded full-system workloads), while achieving a one order of magnitude simulation speedup compared to cycle-accurate simulation. Moreover interval simulation is easy to implement: our implementation of the mechanistic analytical model incurs only one thousand lines of code. Its high accuracy, fast simulation speed and ease-of-use make interval simulation a useful complement to the architect's toolbox for exploring system-level and high-level micro-architecture trade-offs

STOCHSIMGPU Parallel stochastic simulation for the Systems\ud Biology Toolbox 2 for MATLAB

Motivation: The importance of stochasticity in biological systems is becoming increasingly recognised and the computational cost of biologically realistic stochastic simulations urgently requires development of efficient software. We present a new software tool STOCHSIMGPU which exploits graphics processing units (GPUs)for parallel stochastic simulations of biological/chemical reaction systems and show that significant gains in efficiency can be made. It is integrated into MATLAB and works with the Systems Biology Toolbox 2 (SBTOOLBOX2) for MATLAB.\ud \ud Results: The GPU-based parallel implementation of the Gillespie stochastic simulation algorithm (SSA), the logarithmic direct method (LDM), and the next reaction method (NRM) is approximately 85 times faster than the sequential implementation of the NRM on a central processing unit (CPU). Using our software does not require any changes to the user’s models, since it acts as a direct replacement of the stochastic simulation software of the SBTOOLBOX2