Software-implemented fault insertion: An FTMP example

This report presents a model for fault insertion through software; describes its implementation on a fault-tolerant computer, FTMP; presents a summary of fault detection, identification, and reconfiguration data collected with software-implemented fault insertion; and compares the results to hardware fault insertion data. Experimental results show detection time to be a function of time of insertion and system workload. For the fault detection time, there is no correlation between software-inserted faults and hardware-inserted faults; this is because hardware-inserted faults must manifest as errors before detection, whereas software-inserted faults immediately exercise the error detection mechanisms. In summary, the software-implemented fault insertion is able to be used as an evaluation technique for the fault-handling capabilities of a system in fault detection, identification and recovery. Although the software-inserted faults do not map directly to hardware-inserted faults, experiments show software-implemented fault insertion is capable of emulating hardware fault insertion, with greater ease and automation

Fault-free performance validation of fault-tolerant multiprocessors

A validation methodology for testing the performance of fault-tolerant computer systems was developed and applied to the Fault-Tolerant Multiprocessor (FTMP) at NASA-Langley's AIRLAB facility. This methodology was claimed to be general enough to apply to any ultrareliable computer system. The goal of this research was to extend the validation methodology and to demonstrate the robustness of the validation methodology by its more extensive application to NASA's Fault-Tolerant Multiprocessor System (FTMP) and to the Software Implemented Fault-Tolerance (SIFT) Computer System. Furthermore, the performance of these two multiprocessors was compared by conducting similar experiments. An analysis of the results shows high level language instruction execution times for both SIFT and FTMP were consistent and predictable, with SIFT having greater throughput. At the operating system level, FTMP consumes 60% of the throughput for its real-time dispatcher and 5% on fault-handling tasks. In contrast, SIFT consumes 16% of its throughput for the dispatcher, but consumes 66% in fault-handling software overhead

Fault free performance validation of a fault-tolerant multiprocessor : baseline and synthetic workload measurements

technical repor