Multiversion software reliability through fault-avoidance and fault-tolerance

In this project we have proposed to investigate a number of experimental and theoretical issues associated with the practical use of multi-version software in providing dependable software through fault-avoidance and fault-elimination, as well as run-time tolerance of software faults. In the period reported here we have working on the following: We have continued collection of data on the relationships between software faults and reliability, and the coverage provided by the testing process as measured by different metrics (including data flow metrics). We continued work on software reliability estimation methods based on non-random sampling, and the relationship between software reliability and code coverage provided through testing. We have continued studying back-to-back testing as an efficient mechanism for removal of uncorrelated faults, and common-cause faults of variable span. We have also been studying back-to-back testing as a tool for improvement of the software change process, including regression testing. We continued investigating existing, and worked on formulation of new fault-tolerance models. In particular, we have partly finished evaluation of Consensus Voting in the presence of correlated failures, and are in the process of finishing evaluation of Consensus Recovery Block (CRB) under failure correlation. We find both approaches far superior to commonly employed fixed agreement number voting (usually majority voting). We have also finished a cost analysis of the CRB approach

Experiments in fault tolerant software reliability

Twenty functionally equivalent programs were built and tested in a multiversion software experiment. Following unit testing, all programs were subjected to an extensive system test. In the process sixty-one distinct faults were identified among the versions. Less than 12 percent of the faults exhibited varying degrees of positive correlation. The common-cause (or similar) faults spanned as many as 14 components. However, a majority of these faults were trivial, and easily detected by proper unit and/or system testing. Only two of the seven similar faults were difficult faults, and both were caused by specification ambiguities. One of these faults exhibited variable identical-and-wrong response span, i.e. response span which varied with the testing conditions and input data. Techniques that could have been used to avoid the faults are discussed. For example, it was determined that back-to-back testing of 2-tuples could have been used to eliminate about 90 percent of the faults. In addition, four of the seven similar faults could have been detected by using back-to-back testing of 5-tuples. It is believed that most, if not all, similar faults could have been avoided had the specifications been written using more formal notation, the unit testing phase was subject to more stringent standards and controls, and better tools for measuring the quality and adequacy of the test data (e.g. coverage) were used

Software reliability through fault-avoidance and fault-tolerance

The use of back-to-back, or comparison, testing for regression test or porting is examined. The efficiency and the cost of the strategy is compared with manual and table-driven single version testing. Some of the key parameters that influence the efficiency and the cost of the approach are the failure identification effort during single version program testing, the extent of implemented changes, the nature of the regression test data (e.g., random), and the nature of the inter-version failure correlation and fault-masking. The advantages and disadvantages of the technique are discussed, together with some suggestions concerning its practical use

Software reliability through fault-avoidance and fault-tolerance

Twenty independently developed but functionally equivalent software versions were used to investigate and compare empirically some properties of N-version programming, Recovery Block, and Consensus Recovery Block, using the majority and consensus voting algorithms. This was also compared with another hybrid fault-tolerant scheme called Acceptance Voting, using dynamic versions of consensus and majority voting. Consensus voting provides adaptation of the voting strategy to varying component reliability, failure correlation, and output space characteristics. Since failure correlation among versions effectively reduces the cardinality of the space in which the voter make decisions, consensus voting is usually preferable to simple majority voting in any fault-tolerant system. When versions have considerably different reliabilities, the version with the best reliability will perform better than any of the fault-tolerant techniques