On GameSpot: We try out down the PSP Go
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

July 1st, 2008

Why computers fail

Posted by Robin Harris @ 1:25 am

Categories: Clusters, Infrastructure

Tags: Checkpoint, Multiprocessor, Failure, Computer, Desktop Computer, LANL, Desktops, Processors, Hardware, Semiconductors

Good failure data for PCs is hard to find: who knows how many times PC users are told to reinstall Windows? But in a recent paper, Bianca Schroeder and Garth Gibson of CMU found some surprising results in 10 years of large scale cluster system failures at Los Alamos National Labs.

Among the surprises: new hardware isn’t any more reliable than the old stuff. And even wicked smart LANL physicists can’t figure out the cause for every failure.

Special problems of petascale computing
Despite the incredible performance of Roadrunner, LANL’s new petaflop computer, the jobs it runs often take months to complete. With 3,000 nodes failures are inevitable.

What to do?
LANL’s strategy is stop the job and checkpoint. When a node fails they can roll the job back to the last checkpoint and restart, preserving the work already done - but losing the work done after the checkpoint.

Even using massively parallel high-performance storage the checkpoints take time away from getting the answer. Understanding Failures in Petascale Computers uses LANL’s data to better manage the tradeoffs and to suggest new strategies.

But its the failure data itself - and what it suggests about our own computers - that I found most interesting.

Failure etiology
Hardware accounts for over 50% of all LANL failures - with software about 20%. Given all the PhD’s at LANL you’d hope human error would be low on the list - and it is.

Here’s the graph:

Root cause analysis of system failures

Is reliability improving?
Nope. LANL hasn’t seen any improvement over the years - even with hardware from a decade ago.

Failures per year per processor

The key metric
The research showed that

. . . the failure rate of a system grows proportional to the number of processor chips in the system.

Which is a big problem for massive multi-processor systems.

The Storage Bits take
Extrapolating these results to our desktop systems is straightforward - with one big caveat: most desktop system crashes are software, not hardware.

Otherwise the Blue Screen of Death would be the No Screen of Death.

The biggest finding is that we shouldn’t expect our system hardware to get more reliable. Improvements get balanced out by increased complexity.

Those of us with multi-processor systems can expect to see less reliability - though with just a few systems you won’t see any trends. It’s a classic “glass half full” situation: our systems won’t get better, but al least they won’t get worse.

Comments welcome, of course.

Robin HarrisRobin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.


Email Robin Harris

Subscribe to Storage Bits via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 43 Talkback(s)
Personally, in 16 years.....
I have only had ONE computer fail, and that was back at the start of that 16 years when my parents bought a cheap Packard Bell computer, that after the fact was KNOWN for hardware deficiencies and pro... (Read the rest)
Posted by: Lerianis Posted on: 01/11/09 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
A good UPS...  bjbrock | 07/01/08
Power Surges  Spats30 | 07/01/08
Just a thought  morrigen | 07/02/08
...another thought  isotla | 07/02/08
You may want to rethink your "good" UPS  LiquidLearner | 07/01/08
...the failure rate of a system grows with the number of processors.  Henrik Moller | 07/01/08
Software crashes  dkawalec | 07/01/08
Just to clarify...  dkawalec | 07/01/08
Software failure?  jvenezia | 07/01/08
By no software failure, I mean ...  dkawalec | 07/01/08
Most software failures can be avoided.  CobraA1 | 07/02/08
Background on home users  hsec2@... | 07/01/08
I agree  EmenbladE | 07/05/08
You're confusing able and wishes to  LiquidLearner | 07/01/08
I posted a clarification to my original post  dkawalec | 07/01/08
RE: Why computers fail  Telix | 07/01/08
Clarification, please!  Rick_R | 07/01/08
A proportion is ...  dkawalec | 07/01/08
BSOD  t_mohajir | 07/01/08
Agreed  CobraA1 | 07/02/08
It's always virus!  BALTHOR | 07/01/08
Are you sure  nunna@... | 07/05/08
Why do computers fail?  itpro_z | 07/01/08
RE: Why computers fail  hugh@... | 07/02/08
RE: Why computers fail  cwallen19803@... | 07/02/08
Dust  softwareFlunky | 07/02/08
HDDs are your enemies  Gradius2 | 07/02/08
simple suggestions...  isotla | 07/02/08
Old Vs New  geminate7@... | 07/02/08
...the failure rate of a system grows with the number of processors.  Know1 | 07/02/08
You are missing the point here...  jsapaj | 07/03/08
RE: Why computers fail  tnetech | 07/03/08
RE: Why computers fail  alpinesoft | 07/03/08
RE: Why computers fail  eddy.snyders@... | 07/03/08
RE: Why computers fail  beijk@... | 07/03/08
Seems to be discrete chips not cores  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 07/06/08
Not their specialty  Lizzie_B | 07/05/08
True, and  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 07/06/08
RE: Why computers fail  psears_z | 07/07/08
RE: Why computers fail  Un-Common Sense | 08/19/08
Heat, Heat, and MTBF  AllGeek2Me | 09/25/08
A poor extrapolation and missing data  oldsysprog | 01/05/09
Personally, in 16 years.....  Lerianis | 01/11/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here