Limits...
Two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme for reducing system total overheads.

Li H, Pang L, Wang Z - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: The checkpoint technology is used to reduce the losses in the event of a failure.The comparison results show that the total overheads of setting checkpoints, the total re-computing time and the system total overheads in the two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme are all significantly smaller than those in the two-level checkpoint recovery scheme.At last, limitations of our study are discussed, and at the same time, open questions and possible future work are given.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China; Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Long-running applications are often subject to failures. Once failures occur, it will lead to unacceptable system overheads. The checkpoint technology is used to reduce the losses in the event of a failure. For the two-level checkpoint recovery scheme used in the long-running tasks, it is unavoidable for the system to periodically transfer huge memory context to a remote stable storage. Therefore, the overheads of setting checkpoints and the re-computing time become a critical issue which directly impacts the system total overheads. Motivated by these concerns, this paper presents a new model by introducing i-checkpoints into the existing two-level checkpoint recovery scheme to deal with the more probable failures with the smaller cost and the faster speed. The proposed scheme is independent of the specific failure distribution type and can be applied to different failure distribution types. We respectively make analyses between the two-level incremental and two-level checkpoint recovery schemes with the Weibull distribution and exponential distribution, both of which fit with the actual failure distribution best. The comparison results show that the total overheads of setting checkpoints, the total re-computing time and the system total overheads in the two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme are all significantly smaller than those in the two-level checkpoint recovery scheme. At last, limitations of our study are discussed, and at the same time, open questions and possible future work are given.

Show MeSH
The comparison results between two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme and two-level checkpoint recovery scheme for the Weibull distribution.(a) The relationship between the total overheads of setting checkpoints and the number of failures; (b) The relationship between the total re-computing time and the number of failures; (c) The relationship between the total overheads of recovering from the failures and the number of failures; (d) The relationship between the system total overheads and the number of failures; Note: Time Unit depends on parameters in practical implementation, such as the practical value of Om, so it is not given here, which is similar to the case in Figs. 6–10.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4128665&req=5

pone-0104591-g005: The comparison results between two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme and two-level checkpoint recovery scheme for the Weibull distribution.(a) The relationship between the total overheads of setting checkpoints and the number of failures; (b) The relationship between the total re-computing time and the number of failures; (c) The relationship between the total overheads of recovering from the failures and the number of failures; (d) The relationship between the system total overheads and the number of failures; Note: Time Unit depends on parameters in practical implementation, such as the practical value of Om, so it is not given here, which is similar to the case in Figs. 6–10.

Mentions: Firstly, we respectively compare the total overheads of setting checkpoints, the total re-computing time, the total overheads of recovering from failures and the system total overheads with the numbers of the failure between the two-level increment checkpoint recovery scheme and the classical two-level checkpoint recovery scheme. The comparison results are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.


Two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme for reducing system total overheads.

Li H, Pang L, Wang Z - PLoS ONE (2014)

The comparison results between two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme and two-level checkpoint recovery scheme for the Weibull distribution.(a) The relationship between the total overheads of setting checkpoints and the number of failures; (b) The relationship between the total re-computing time and the number of failures; (c) The relationship between the total overheads of recovering from the failures and the number of failures; (d) The relationship between the system total overheads and the number of failures; Note: Time Unit depends on parameters in practical implementation, such as the practical value of Om, so it is not given here, which is similar to the case in Figs. 6–10.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4128665&req=5

pone-0104591-g005: The comparison results between two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme and two-level checkpoint recovery scheme for the Weibull distribution.(a) The relationship between the total overheads of setting checkpoints and the number of failures; (b) The relationship between the total re-computing time and the number of failures; (c) The relationship between the total overheads of recovering from the failures and the number of failures; (d) The relationship between the system total overheads and the number of failures; Note: Time Unit depends on parameters in practical implementation, such as the practical value of Om, so it is not given here, which is similar to the case in Figs. 6–10.
Mentions: Firstly, we respectively compare the total overheads of setting checkpoints, the total re-computing time, the total overheads of recovering from failures and the system total overheads with the numbers of the failure between the two-level increment checkpoint recovery scheme and the classical two-level checkpoint recovery scheme. The comparison results are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

Bottom Line: The checkpoint technology is used to reduce the losses in the event of a failure.The comparison results show that the total overheads of setting checkpoints, the total re-computing time and the system total overheads in the two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme are all significantly smaller than those in the two-level checkpoint recovery scheme.At last, limitations of our study are discussed, and at the same time, open questions and possible future work are given.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China; Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Long-running applications are often subject to failures. Once failures occur, it will lead to unacceptable system overheads. The checkpoint technology is used to reduce the losses in the event of a failure. For the two-level checkpoint recovery scheme used in the long-running tasks, it is unavoidable for the system to periodically transfer huge memory context to a remote stable storage. Therefore, the overheads of setting checkpoints and the re-computing time become a critical issue which directly impacts the system total overheads. Motivated by these concerns, this paper presents a new model by introducing i-checkpoints into the existing two-level checkpoint recovery scheme to deal with the more probable failures with the smaller cost and the faster speed. The proposed scheme is independent of the specific failure distribution type and can be applied to different failure distribution types. We respectively make analyses between the two-level incremental and two-level checkpoint recovery schemes with the Weibull distribution and exponential distribution, both of which fit with the actual failure distribution best. The comparison results show that the total overheads of setting checkpoints, the total re-computing time and the system total overheads in the two-level incremental checkpoint recovery scheme are all significantly smaller than those in the two-level checkpoint recovery scheme. At last, limitations of our study are discussed, and at the same time, open questions and possible future work are given.

Show MeSH