Improving Availability Bounds using the Failure Distance Concept

  • Juan A. Carrasco
Part of the Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerant Systems book series (DEPENDABLECOMP, volume 9)


Continuous-time Markov chains are commonly used for dependability modeling of repairable fault-tolerant computer systems. Realistic models of non-trivial fault-tolerant systems easily have very large state spaces. An attractive approach which has been proposed to deal with the largeness problem is the use of pruning-based methods which provide error bounds. Using results from Courtois and Semai, a method for bounding the steady-state availability has been recently developed by Muntz, de Souza e Silva, and Goyal. This paper presents a new method based on a different approach which exploits the concept of failure distance to better bound the behavior out of the non-generated state space. The proposed method yields tighter bounds. Numerical analysis shows that the improvement is typically significant.


Failure Event Repair Rate Failed Component Failure Distance Reward Rate 
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]
    R. E. Barlow and F. Proshan, Statistical Theory of Reliability and Life Testing. Probability Models, McArdle Press, Silver Spring, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. A. Boyd, M. Veeraraghavan, J. B. Dugan, and K. S. Trivedi, “An approach to solving large reliability models,” in Proc. AIAA Components in Aerospace Conference, pp. 245-258, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. A. Carrasco, “Failure distance-based simulation of repairable faulttolerant systems,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, pp. 351-365, Elsevier, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. A. Carrasco, “Tight steady-state availability bounds using the failure distance concept,” Research report, September 1993, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. Çinlar, Introduction to Stochastic Processes, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1975.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Dal Cin, “Availability analysis of a fault-tolerant computer system,” IEEE Trans. on Reliability, vol. R-29, no. 3, pp. 265–268, August 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. J. Courtois and P. Semal, “Bounds for the positive eigenvectors of nonnegative matrices and for their approximations,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 804–825, October 1984.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. J. Courtois and P. Semai, “Computable bounds for conditional steady-state probabilities in large Markov chains and queueing models,” IEEE J. Selected Areas in Communications, vol. SAC-4, no. 6, pp. 926–937, September 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. J. Courtois and P. Semai, “Bounds for transient characteristics of large or infinite Markov chains,” in W. J. Stewart, editor, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Numerical Solution of Markov Chains, pp. 413-434, Marcel Dekker, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Goyal, P. Shahabuddin, P. Heidelberger, V. F. Nicola, and P. W. Glynn, “A unified framework for simulating Markovian models of highly dependable systems,” IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 36–51, January 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A.M. Johnson Jr. and M. Malek, “Survey of software tools for evaluating reliability, availability and serviceability,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 20, pp. 227–271, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. G. Kemeny and J. L. Snell, Finite Markov Chains, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2nd edition, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    W. S. Lee, D. L. Grosh, F. A. Tillman and C. H. Lie, “Fault Tree Analysis, Methods and Applications—A Review,” IEEE Trans. on Reliability, vol. R-34, no. 3, pp. 194–203, August 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. C. S. Lui and R. R. Muntz, “Evaluating bounds on steady-state availability of repairable systems from Markov models,” in W. J. Stewart, editor, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Numerical Solution of Markov Chains, pp. 435-454, Marcel Dekker, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. R. Muntz, E. de Souza e Silva, and A. Goyal, “Bounding availability of repairable computer systems,” IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1714–1723, December 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. A. Sahner and K. S. Trivedi, “Reliability modeling using SH ARPE,” IEEE Trans. on Reliability, vol. R-36, no. 2, pp. 186–193, June 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    E. de Souza e Silva and P. M. Ochoa, “State space exploration in Markov models,” Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 152–166, June 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan A. Carrasco
    • 1
  1. 1.Departament d’Enginyería ElectrònicaUniversitat Politécnica de Catalunya (UPC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations