On CBSNews.com: 60 Minutes: OBAMA's First Interview
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

July 1st, 2008

Why computers fail

Posted by Robin Harris @ 1:25 am

Categories: Infrastructure, Clusters

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

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 41 Talkback(s)
Heat, Heat, and MTBF
Heat IS the most dangerous, next to static discharge, to electronic componenets. So more fans you say? More noise, I say.

I keep my tower in an open space, properly grounded with the side cove... (Read the rest)
Posted by: hasntaclu Posted on: 09/25/08 You are currently: Logged In | Log out
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 Harris  ZDNet | 07/06/08
Not their specialty Lizzie_B   | 07/05/08
True, and R Harris  ZDNet | 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 hasntaclu   | 09/25/08

What do you think?

One Trackback

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/wp-trackback.php?p=339

  • Maintaining A Vigil
    It remains one of the biggest problems for many who use computers. It is supposed to be getting better, but statistics from full time usage shows it just is not so. What is the problem? Hardware failure. In his post this morning, ...

    Trackback by Revelations From An Unwashed Brain — July 1, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs