Evaluation of Fault-Tolerant Software: A Performability Modeling Approach

  • Ann T. Tai
  • Algirdas Avižienis
  • John F. Meyer
Part of the Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerant Systems book series (DEPENDABLECOMP, volume 8)


A comparative evaluation of recovery blocks and N-version programming (N = 3) is accomplished by means of performability modeling. For each scheme, a corresponding stochastic process model is constructed by employing a hierarchical modeling framework. Comparison is based on a performability measure that quantifies software “effectiveness” in a designated operational environment. The evaluation results reveal some interesting differences between the two schemes; in addition, they point to certain inadequacies in the use of computational redundancy which could serve as the basis for design modification.


Execution Time Decision Function Catastrophic Failure Acceptance Test Related Fault 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Avizienis. Software fault tolerance. Information Processing 89: Proc. of the IFIP Congress 89 (G. X. Ritter, ed.), 1989, pp. 491-498.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. Randell. System structure for software fault tolerance. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, Vol. SE-12, June 1975, pp. 220–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Avizienis, L. Chen. On the implementation of N-Version Programming for software fault-tolerance during program execution. Proc. of COMPSAC-77, 1977, pp. 149-155.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Grnarov, J. Arlat, A. Avižienis. On the performance of software fault-tolerance strategies. Proc. Int. Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, (Kyoto, Japan), October 1980, pp. 251-253.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Arlat, K. Kanoun, J-C. Laprie. Dependability modeling and evaluation of software fault-tolerance systems. IEEE Trans. Computers, Vol. C-39, April 1990, pp. 504–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Leu, E. B. Fernandez, T. Khoshgoftaar. Fault-tolerant software reliability modeling using petri-nets. Microelectronics and Reliability, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1991, pp. 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Pucci. A new approach to the modeling of recovery block structure. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, Vol. SE-18, February 1992, pp. 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. F. Meyer. On evaluating the performability of degradable computing systems. IEEE Trans. Computers, Vol. C-29, August 1980, pp. 720–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. F. Meyer. Performability: a retrospective and some pointers to the future. Performance Evaluation, Vol. 14, 1992, pp. 139–156.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Gelenbe, I. Mitrani. Modeling the execution of block structured processes with hardware and software failures. Mathematical Computer Performance and Reliability (G. Iazeolla et al., eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, North-Holland, 1984, pp. 329–339.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P. F. Chimento, K. S. Trivedi. The performance of block structured programs on processors subject to failure and repair. High Performance Computer Systems (E. Gelenbe, ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, North-Holland, 1988, pp. 269–280.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. C. Hsueh, B. K. Iyer. A measurement-based performability model for a multiprocessor system. Computer Performance and Reliability. (G. Iazeolla et al., eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, North-Holland, 1988, pp. 337–351.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. T. Tai. Performability concepts and modeling techniques for real-time software. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA Computer Science Department, Los Angeles, CA, December 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann T. Tai
    • 1
  • Algirdas Avižienis
    • 2
  • John F. Meyer
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science ProgramUniversity of Texas at DallasDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations