| 13 I. Keidar and K. Marzullo. The need for realistic failure models in protocol design. In 4th Intl. Survivability Wshop (ISW) 2001. |
....aids in reasoning about these system, but can fail to capture important aspects of actual system behavior. One important example is that of reliability metrics. Many fault tolerant algorithms are designed under the assumption that no more than an explicit fraction of components can fail [11]. This characterization implicitly assumes that the probability of a component failing while a protocol is in progress is independent of the duration of the protocol, that all components have an identical probability of failure, and that components fail independently. These assumptions do not ....
I. Keidar and K. Marzullo. The need for realistic failure models in protocol design. In Proc. of International Survivability Workshop, 2002.
No context found.
13 I. Keidar and K. Marzullo. The need for realistic failure models in protocol design. In 4th Intl. Survivability Wshop (ISW) 2001.
....time of distributed algorithms is the number of communication rounds the algorithm performs, or the number of message exchange steps in case of a non synchronous system (e.g. 20, 14, 15] In Section 3, we illustrate the weakness of this metric. Another example is reliability metrics. In [13], we highlight the fact that fault tolerant algorithms are often designed under the assumption that no more than t out of n processes or components can fail. This characterization of failures implicitly assumes that the probability of a component failing while a protocol is in progress is ....
I. Keidar and K. Marzullo. The need for realistic failure models in protocol design. In 4th International Survivability Workshop (ISW) 2001.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC