Successive Operational Periods as Measures of Dependability

  • Gerardo Rubino
  • Bruno Sericola
Part of the Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerant Systems book series (DEPENDABLECOMP, volume 4)


We consider fault-tolerant computing systems, that is, systems which are able to recover an operational state after a fault. We propose new measures of dependability to quantify the behaviour of such a system all along its lifetime. With respect to classical measures (point availability, reliability) we consider the successive periods during which the system is in operation. Under markovian assumptions, we give closed-form expressions of the distribution and the moments of these operational periods. These measures give more insight on the evolution of the system than classical ones. Their utilization is illustrated by means of a numerical example.


Sojourn Time Operational Period Transition Probability Matrix Hardware Failure Local Clock 
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]
    J.C.Laprie, “Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerance: Concepts and Terminology”, In 15th IEEE Int. Symp. on Fault Tolerant Computing (FTCS-15), Ann Arbor (Michigan), 1985.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Avizienis, J.C.Laprie, “Dependable Computing: from concepts to design diversity”, Proc. of the IEEE, 74(5): 629–638, August 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    B.Parhami, “From Defects to Failures: a View of Dependable Computing”, Computer Architecture News, 16(4), September 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. de Souza e Silva, H. R. Gail, “Calculating cumulative operational time distributions of repairable computer systems”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, C.35: 322–332, April 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    B. V. Gnedenko, Yu. K. Belyayev, A. D. Solovyev, Mathematical Methods of Reliability Theory, Academic Press, 1969.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Rubino, B. Sericola, “Sojourn times in finite Markov processes”, J. Appl. Prob., 27: 744–756, December 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Marie, B. Sericola, “Distribution du temps total de séjour dans un sous-ensemble d’états transitoires d’un processus Markovien homogène à espace d’état fini”, Technical Report 585, I.N.R.I.A., Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex, France, November 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    G. Ciardo, R. Marie, B. Sericola, K. Trivedi, “Performability analysis using semi-Markov process”, Technical Report CS-1988-9, Duke Computer Science, 1988, to appear in IEEE Trans. on Comp.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Le Lann, “Algorithms for Distributed Data-Sharing Systems which use Tickets”, In Proc. 3rd Berkeley Workshop on Distributed Data Base and Computer Networks, Berkeley, USA, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Misra, “Detecting Termination of Distributed Computations Using Markers”, In Proc. 2nd annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Montreal, Canada, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Raynal, G. Rubino, “An Algorithm to Detect Token Loss on a Logical Ring and to Regenerate Lost Tokens”, In Proc. of the International Conference on Parallel Processing and Applications, L’Aquila, Italie, North-Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Raynal, G. Rubino, Détecter la perte de jetons et les régénérer sur une structure en anneau, Technical Report 428, I.N.R.I.A., Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex, France, Juillet 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerardo Rubino
    • 1
  • Bruno Sericola
    • 1
  1. 1.IRISARennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations