| P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman, "Fig: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms," in ACM ICS SHAMAN Workshop, Ney York, NC, June 2002. |
....[18] and Xception [7] inject faults without modifying the applications. Tools like DOCTOR [16] modify the application at compile time, and others during runtime. Our tool injects faults in the form of exceptions, by modifying the application either at compile time or at load time. Unlike FIG [5], which tests the error handling of applications by returning error codes to system calls, our tool only injects application level exceptions. Our tool does not only evaluate the robustness of programs by performing exception injections, but it also automatically corrects the problems discovered ....
P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman. Fig: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms. In ACM ICS SHAMAN Workshop, Ney York, NC, June 2002.
.... Fault insertion was originally developed in the context of software testing to help evaluate the coverage of testing processes [14] It has also been used by other researchers for the purposes of evaluating standard failure recovery techniques such as duplication, checkpointing, and fast reboot [1]. The rationale behind fault insertion is that faults, while serious when they do occur, occur infrequently enough to seriously complicate the experimental investigation of failure recovery techniques. Fault insertion makes it practical to evaluate proposed recovery techniques on a range of ....
P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman. FIG: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms. In Workshop on Self-Healing, Adaptive and self-MANaged Systems, June 2002.
....complex systems more subtle forms of inaccuracy creep in. In our example PRESS system, we never modeled SCSI cables, although these are a common source of error [12] Many components are not modeled. Many interfaces and interconnections are ignored, e. g, the return codes from the operating system [13]. The set of all possible faults must be restricted to something tractable, typically a few tens at best. Many assumed symptoms are just plain wrong; e.g. fail stop behavior is typically assumed but often not true [14] Symptoms are often attributed to the wrong failure; e.g. TCP assumes that ....
J. Traupman P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, "FIG: A prototype Tool for Online Verification of Recovery Mechanism," in Proceedings of Workshop on Self-Healing, Adaptive and self-MANaged Systems (SHAMAN), June 2002.
No context found.
P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman, "Fig: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms," in ACM ICS SHAMAN Workshop, Ney York, NC, June 2002.
No context found.
P. A. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman. FIG: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms. In Workshop on Self-Healing, Adaptive and Self-Managed Systems, New York, NY, 2002.
No context found.
P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman. FIG: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms. In Workshop on Self-Healing, Adaptive and self-MANaged Systems, June 2002.
No context found.
P. Broadwell, N. Sastry, and J. Traupman. FIG: A prototype tool for online verification of recovery mechanisms. In Workshop on SelfHealing, Adaptive and self-MANaged Systems, June 2002.
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