Classifications

• • G—PHYSICS
  • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
  • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
  • G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
  • G06F11/22—Detection or location of defective computer hardware by testing during standby operation or during idle time, e.g. start-up testing
  • G06F11/2294—Detection or location of defective computer hardware by testing during standby operation or during idle time, e.g. start-up testing by remote test
• • G—PHYSICS
  • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
  • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
  • G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
  • G06F11/07—Responding to the occurrence of a fault, e.g. fault tolerance
  • G06F11/0703—Error or fault processing not based on redundancy, i.e. by taking additional measures to deal with the error or fault not making use of redundancy in operation, in hardware, or in data representation
  • G06F11/0793—Remedial or corrective actions
• • G—PHYSICS
  • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
  • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
  • G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
  • G06F11/07—Responding to the occurrence of a fault, e.g. fault tolerance
  • G06F11/0703—Error or fault processing not based on redundancy, i.e. by taking additional measures to deal with the error or fault not making use of redundancy in operation, in hardware, or in data representation
  • G06F11/079—Root cause analysis, i.e. error or fault diagnosis

Definitions

• the present invention relates generally to computer systems and specifically to methods and systems for fault diagnosis and maintenance in computer systems .
• U . S . Patent 6 , 003 , 081 whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference, describes a method for automatically generating a repair request from a remote client to a server, wherein the client identifies the malfunctioning part and transmits an error notification and an identification of the faulty part to the server .
• U . S . Patent 5 , 774 , 645 whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference, describes a device for identifying faults in a complex system containing a plurality of elements . The device has a centralized processing station monitoring a system of complex elements , which issue fault cues to the central processing station .
• Some fault monitoring systems utilize historical information from previous fault events .
• U . S . Patent 6, 415 , 395 whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference , describes a system and method for processing repair data and fault log data from one or more machines to facilitate analysis of a malfunctioning machine, particularly applied to the locomotive industry .
• U . S . Patent 6, 622 , 264 whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference, describes a process , relating to the locomotive industry, for analyzing fault log data from a machine, and generating repair recommendations based upon the comparison of the new fault log data and prior fault log data .
• U . S . Patent 4 , 654 , 852 whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference, describes a data-processing system that diagnoses problems in one of its subsystems and displays information directing an operator to perform certain actions . The information is based upon the subsystem configuration, previous test results , and operator inputs .
• U . S . Patent 4 , 922 , 491 whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference, describes a method of automatically detecting and analyzing exception events in a computer peripheral subsystem. A database is searched to determine whether the current exception event relates to a problem already recorded. If a match is found, a service alert message is transmitted to the host system, containing a variety of information for the subsystem user and for a repair technician .
• the cost of servicing computerized systems is a maj or contributor to the overall operating cost of the system. This is particularly true for large and complex computer systems , comprising many sub-units and components . It is desirable to reduce the cost involved in detecting, diagnosing and correcting faults in such computerized systems . Cost reduction may be achieved by automatic maintenance systems .
• the use of automatic maintenance helps to reduce maintenance costs in several ways :
• An automatic system may easily rely on historical data for making decisions , thereby increasing the probability of success .
• Embodiments of the present invention address situations in which an automatic maintenance system is not able to isolate the fault and identify a single failed component . Instead, the system generates a list of several components suspected of causing the fault . To a technician, this list is typically presented as a list of suggested corrective actions for correcting the fault . Disclosed embodiments provide methods for improving the probability of successful fault correction, by prioritizing the list of corrective actions based on historical data regarding past repairs . Typically, corrective actions that have already been performed in the recent past are moved to the end of the list, so that the technician is prompted to try different actions when a failure recurs .
• a method for servicing a computerized system including : detecting a failure of a given type in the computerized system; generating a list of corrective actions in response to the failure , using an automated maintenance program; retrieving a record of one or more previous failures of the given type in the computerized system, and indicating at least one previous corrective action taken in response to the previous failures ; prioritizing the list of corrective actions responsively to the record, using the automated maintenance program, so as to adj ust a priority of the at least one previous corrective action in the list; and providing the prioritized list from the automated maintenance program to a repair function for use in servicing the computerized system.
• the computerized system includes a data storage system .
• detecting the failure includes receiving an automatic failure alert .
• retrieving the record includes determining a time of the at least one previous corrective action, and prioritizing the list includes ordering the list responsively to the time .
• ordering the list includes determining a most-recently-performed action, and moving the most-recently-performed action to the end of the list .
• ordering the list includes reordering the list in ascending order of the time . Further alternatively, ordering the list includes determining the priority responsively to the time of the at least one previous corrective action and to a measure of probability of the previous failures .
• determining the priority includes comparing the time of the at least one previous corrective action performed on a component of the computerized system to a mean time between failures (MTBF) of the component .
• MTBF mean time between failures
• ordering the list includes determining whether to change the priority by comparing the time of the at least one previous corrective action performed on a component of the computerized system to a characteristic failure time of the component .
• generating the list of corrective actions includes listing one or more suspected components to be replaced by the repair function . Additionally or alternatively, the method includes automatically detecting the components replaced by the repair function so as to generate the record.
• providing the prioritized list includes presenting the prioritized list to a repair person .
• apparatus for use in servicing a computerized system including a maintenance processor, which is arranged to receive an indication of a failure of a given type in the computerized system, to generate a list of corrective actions in response to the failure, to retrieve a record of one or more previous failures of the given type in the computerized system, and indicating at least one previous corrective action taken in response to the previous failures , to prioritize the list of corrective actions responsively to the record so as to adj ust a priority of the at least one previous corrective action in the list, and to provide the prioritized list to a repair function for use in servicing the computerized system.
• a maintenance processor which is arranged to receive an indication of a failure of a given type in the computerized system, to generate a list of corrective actions in response to the failure, to retrieve a record of one or more previous failures of the given type in the computerized system, and indicating at least one previous corrective action taken in response to the previous failures , to prioritize the list of corrective actions responsively to the record so as to
• a computer software product for use in servicing a computerized system, the product including a computer-readable medium in which program instructions are stored, which instructions , when read by a computer, cause the computer to receive an indication of a failure of a given type in the computerized system, to generate a list of corrective actions in response to the failure, to retrieve a record of one or more previous failures of the given type in the computerized system, and indicating at least one previous corrective action taken in response to the previous failures , to prioritize the list of corrective actions responsively to the record so as to adjust a priority of the at least one previous corrective action in the list, and to provide the prioritized list to a repair function for use in servicing the computerized system.
• Fig . 1 is a schematic, pictorial illustration of a computerized system, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
• Fig . 2 is a flow chart that schematically illustrates a method for diagnosing and servicing a computerized system, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention .
• Fig . 1 is a schematic, pictorial illustration of a computerized system 20 , in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention .
• System 20 comprises a mainframe 30 , which comprises various hardware units such as computer platforms 32 , storage units 34 , communications units 36 and other miscellaneous hardware components . Cables 40 interconnect the various hardware units .
• a maintenance processor 38 performs maintenance-related tasks , as will be described in detail hereinbelow .
• Additional peripheral computing equipment such as an operator console 42 , may also be part of the computerized system.
• the computerized system may be assigned to perform any computing task, such as data storage, data processing or any other computing task as is known in the art .
• a technician 44 is responsible for first-level maintenance of the computerized system.
• the technician may replace, in response to a failure, one or more hardware units in mainframe 30.
• the technician may use operator console 42 to access system information, receive failure alarms and reports , and perform other service, repair and maintenance tasks .
• some or all of the service and repair functions in system 20 may be performed automatically, by a robot, for example .
• Maintenance processor 38 monitors the operation of the computerized system and detects and records failures automatically .
• maintenance processor 38 records the identity of all hardware units of mainframe 30 , and detects automatically whenever a technician replaces a hardware unit .
• the maintenance processor Once the maintenance processor has detected a failure, it attempts to localize it and identify the faulty component or components . A successful identification directs the technician to the cause of the failure, thereby reducing the service time . In many scenarios , however, the maintenance processor cannot isolate a single faulty component in response to a failure, due to the complexity of the computerized system. For example, in a large data storage system, a failure characterized by a pattern of intermittent read or write failures across several logical storage volumes may be due to any number of reasons , such as a faulty physical storage unit, a faulty cable or a faulty control module in another unit .
• the maintenance processor typically generates a short list of possible causes of the failure and corrective actions (such as replacement of one or more components ) that may be taken to remedy them.
• the list may be generated, for example, using expert system software, which typically prioritizes the list according to certain criteria, such as the likelihood that each of the corrective actions will remedy the failure .
• This list is presented to technician 44 , who then chooses the appropriate corrective action from the list .
• the technician may perform any of the following :
• Maintenance processor 38 records the fact that certain hardware components have been replaced by the technician, for example by detecting that new serial numbers have appeared on the system bus .
• Embodiments of the present invention provide a method for improving the probability of success of correcting a fault, by reordering and prioritizing the list of corrective actions given by maintenance processor 38 to technician 44 so as to avoid repeating actions that were performed recently without evident success .
• maintenance processor 38 comprises a general-purpose computer, which is programmed in software to carry out the functions described herein .
• the software may be downloaded to the computer in electronic form, over a network, for example, or it may alternatively be supplied to the computer on tangible media, such as CD-ROM.
• Maintenance processor 38 may comprise a standalone unit, or it may alternatively be integrated with other computing equipment, or its functions shared with other functions of computerized system 20 on a single computer platform, as is known in the art .
• maintenance processor 38 is described herein, for the sake of clarity, as a separate entity, the functions of maintenance processor 38 may alternatively be performed by one or more of the computer platforms in mainframe 30 , among other tasks carried out by these platform in question .
• Fig . 2 is a flow chart that schematically illustrates a method for diagnosing and servicing a computerized system, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention . This method is described, for clarity and convenience, with reference to computerized system 20 , as described above . The principles of the present invention, however, may similarly be applied to computer-assisted diagnosis and repair of many other types of complex systems , as will be apparent to those skilled in the art .
• the method of Fig . 2 begins when maintenance processor 38 detects a failure in computerized system 20 at a failure detecting step 50.
• the maintenance processor attempts to isolate the fault to specific components , and generates a list of possible corrective actions at a list generating step 52. Typically, each corrective action involves replacement of one or more components in system 20 , although other sorts of corrective actions may also be included in the list .
• the maintenance processor checks whether or not there are recent records of similar failure events having occurred in this specific computerized system 20 , at a history checking step 54. If no such previous records exist, the maintenance processor outputs a predetermined list of corrective actions and terminates at a termination step 56.
• the list is ranked according to predetermined criteria, such as statistical analysis of past faults in order to rank the corrective actions in terms of their a priori likelihood of success , ease of execution, and/or cost of replacement components .
• predetermined criteria such as statistical analysis of past faults in order to rank the corrective actions in terms of their a priori likelihood of success , ease of execution, and/or cost of replacement components .
• maintenance processor 38 finds a previous record of one or more similar recent failures in computerized system 20 , it retrieves the lists of corrective actions that were generated in response to the previous failures at a list retrieving step 58. The maintenance processor then checks which corrective action or actions were taken (typically, which previously-suspected components were indeed replaced) in response to the previous failures , at a replacement checking step 60. At the same time the maintenance processor notes the date and time at which each past replacement occurred.
• the maintenance processor reorders the present list of corrective actions at a list reordering step 62.
• the maintenance processor moves the most-recently performed action on the present list to the end of the list, thereby assigning it a low priority .
• the next-most-recently performed action may be placed second-to-last .
• a maintenance action is considered "recent" in this context if the time that has passed since the action is less than or on the order of a characteristic failure time (such as the mean time between failures - MTBF) of the component in question . Actions performed much longer ago than this characteristic time are typically ignored.
• the maintenance processor outputs the reordered list of corrective actions and terminates at termination step 56.
• the maintenance processor reorders the present list completely at step 62 , in descending order of priority, based on the time that passed from the previous performance of each action .
• the most-recently performed action is moved to the end of the list, the second-most-recently performed action becomes one before last, and so on .
• the action at the beginning of the reordered list is assumed to be the most likely candidate for execution . In this way, the maintenance processor prompts the technician to avoid repeating corrective actions that were taken in the recent past and were apparently unsuccessful, as evidenced by the recurrence of the failure .
• the list may be reordered at step 62 by considering a measure of the a priori probability of component faults , such as the MTBF of the components in question .
• a measure of the a priori probability of component faults such as the MTBF of the components in question .
• the failure has a 99% probability of being caused by a disk fault, and only 1% probability of being caused by a switch fault .
• the decision as to reordering of the list of corrective actions is based on both the times at which components were replaced and on the conditional probability (based on the MTBF, for example) of a repeat failure .

Landscapes

• Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
• Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
• General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
• Quality & Reliability (AREA)
• Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
• General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
• Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
• Debugging And Monitoring (AREA)
• Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
• Test And Diagnosis Of Digital Computers (AREA)

Priority Applications (2)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Publications (1)

Family

ID=35914581

Family Applications (1)

Country Status (5)

Families Citing this family (39)

Citations (4)

Family Cites Families (19)

• 2005
  • 2005-01-18 US US11/037,513 patent/US7409595B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
• 2006
  • 2006-01-12 CN CNB2006800024654A patent/CN100559350C/zh not_active Expired - Fee Related
  • 2006-01-12 JP JP2007550793A patent/JP4717079B2/ja not_active Expired - Fee Related
  • 2006-01-12 WO PCT/EP2006/050178 patent/WO2006077193A1/en not_active Ceased
  • 2006-01-12 EP EP06701665A patent/EP1851634A1/en not_active Withdrawn

Patent Citations (4)

Non-Patent Citations (1)

Also Published As

Similar Documents

Legal Events