1. Fault Detection Sathish S. Vadhiyar Source/Credits: From Referenced Papers

2. Introduction  Fine Grain Cycle Sharing (FGCS)  Host computers allow guest jobs to utilize CPU cycles  Availability of host computers vary  Guest jobs may incur resource failures  Need to predict availability of host computers  A scheduling system can allocate guest jobs based on the availability of host computers

3. Kinds of Non Availabilities  FRC (Failures Caused by Resource Contention)  A guest job may significantly impact host processes  Hence a guest job can be removed  FRR (Failures Caused by Resource Revocation)  A machine owner suspends resource contribution without notice  Hardware-software failures occur

4. Resource Failure Prediction  A multi-state failure model and application of a semi-Markov Process (SMP) to predict the temporal reliability  Predicting probability that no resource failure will occur on a machine in a future time window  Observing host resource usage values in a time window; calculating parameters of SMP based on host resource usage values

5. Multi-state resource failure model  FRR – 2 states  A machine is either available or unavailable  FRC  Failures when host processes incur noticeable slowdown due to contention from guest processes  A host processor can first decrease the priority of guest processes; If this does not help, the guest process is terminated  Measured host resource usage as indicators of noticeable slowdown

6. Initial Experiments  To study relations between host resource usage and FRC - Experiments conducted to simulate resource contentions between a guest process and host processes  Host-group – an aggregated set of host processes with various resource usages  Slowdown of host group – reduction of its CPU utilization due to contending guest process  Host programs are run with their isolated CPU usage between 10% and 100%  Guest process – a CPU bound program

7. Experiments on CPU contention  Also measured reduction rate of host CPU usage for a host-group  Experiments repeated with different host groups with host priority 0, and guest priority 0 and 19 (renice)  Measured reduction rate plotted as function of isolated host CPU usage, L H  Found 2 thresholds for LH  Th1 – highest value of LH when guest process needs to be reniced to keep reduction rate below 5%  Th2 – highest value of LH when guest process needs to be suspended to keep reduction rate below 5%

8. State model for LRC  3 states  S1 - When LH < Th1; ignore resource contention due to guest processes; slowdown already less than 5%  S2 - When Th1 < LH < Th2; renice guest processes for slowdown to be < 5%  S3 - When LH > Th2; terminate guest process

9. Experiments on CPU and Memory Contention  When memory trashing occurs  Total memory of guest and host processes exceed available memory size  Experiments were conducted to verify memory trashing does not depend on guest priority  S4 – for failure due to memory trashing

10. Multi-State Failure Model  Proposed prediction algorithm is to predict the probability that a machine will never transfer to S3, S4, or S5 within a future time window  Transitions  Between S1, S2, S3 – decided by measured host CPU usage  To S4 – when memory is limited

11. Semi-Markov Process Model (SMP)  Applicable when next transition depends only on  Current state  How long the system at the current state  Transition probabilities depend on amount of time elapsed since last change in state  SMP is defined by a 3-tuple  S – finite set of states  Q – state transition matrix  H – holding time mass function matrix

12. SMP (Contd…)   The most important statistics of SMP - Interval transition probabilities, P  To calculate P  Continuous time SMP is expensive  Hence the work develops a discrete time SMP model

13. SMP for Resource Availability  TR – probability of never transferring to S3, S4 or S5 within an arbitrary time window, W  S init – initial system state  W – W init + T  Q and H calculated based on statistics from history logs due to monitoring host resource usage

14. SMP for Resource Availability  P i,j (m) = P i,j (W init, W init +m)  P 1 i,k (l) – interval transition probabilities for a one-step transition  d – time unit of a discretization interval  Q and H calculated based on statistics from history logs due to monitoring host resource usage

15. System Design and Implementation  Client requests job submission  Client’s job scheduler queries the gateways on available machines for temporal availabilities  Chooses a machine and spawns a guest job  During job execution, monitor detects state transition and notifies gateway  Gateway renices or kills the guest processes accordingly  Resource monitor uses simple cpu commands like `top’ to calculate cpu usages

16. Computation in Solving SMP  Matrix sparsity in SMP is exploited to reduce computations  The sparse matrix is constructed based on 2 facts:  It takes a finite amount of time to transition from one state to another  S3, S4, S5 are unrecoverable failure states

17. Prediction Accuracy TR gets close to 0 for large time windows

18. Appropriate Training Size

19. Comparison with Linear Regression Techniques

20. Injecting Noises

21. References  Resource Failure Prediction in Fine- Grained Cycle Sharing Systems. X. Ren, S. Lee, R. Eigenmann, S. Bagchi. HPDC 2006.