Slashdot Mirror
A Diagnosis of Self-Healing Systems
gManZboy writes "We've been hearing about self-healing systems for a while, but (as is usual), so far it's more hype than reality. Well it looks like Mike Shapiro (from Sun's Solaris Kernel group) has been doing a little actual work in this direction. His prognosis is that there's a long way to go before we get fully self-healing systems. In this article he talks a little bit about what he's done, points out some alternative approaches to his own, as well as what's left to do."
Which turned out not to be faulty... hmmm...
Some IBM mainframes are already at this level of self-diagnosis. Where I work, IBM repairmen show up with spare drives for the RAID array when they fail and the array phones IBM to report the fault. We don't know that a drive failed until the field service tech shows up!
I don't know why windows doesn't just have a reset button for all the settings to return it to it's original condition. It's a bitch to reinstall it twice a year, you know.
The most successful example is Tandem. For decades, systems that have to keep running have run on Tandem's operating system. For an overview of how they did it, see the 1985 paper Why Computers Stop and What Can Be Done About It.
The basic concepts are:
Every time you use an ATM or trade a stock, somewhere a Tandem cluster was involved.
Tandem's problem was that they had rather expensive proprietary hardware. You also needed extra hardware to allow for fail-operational systems. But it all really does work. HP still sells Tandem, but since Carly, it's being neglected, like most other high technology at HP.
I have it so that if one of our firewalls detects an attempt to access gator.com it enrols the machine into an active directory system group which the SMS server queries to automatically de-spyware it with SpyBot.
I'd call that a self healing system. I'm a network admin though so my perception of these things tends to be on a larger scale.
This is really something that, IMHO, calls for more interaction between the best of the futurists, science-fiction writers, and coders, and other complexity thinkers.
In order for any system to have an understanding of and proper diagnosis of its own operation, it needs to be able to conceptualize its relationship to other systems around it. Am I important? What functions do I provide? What level of error is proper to report to my administrator? Do I have a history of hardware problems? Has chip 2341 on motherboard 12 been acting up intermittently? If so, is it getting worse or better? How have I been doing over the last few days? Is there a new virus going around that is similar to something I've had before?
What good is a self-diagnosing system without a memory of its prior actions?
All of these questions imply some sort of context that will require the system to use symbols to represent "things" in the "world" around it. Clearly, the largest (though perhaps not qualitatively different) symbol will be a "self" symbol.
From there, all you have to do is follow Hofstadter's path and you'll arrive at a system with emergent self-awareness or consciousness.
The end result of this will be something a) very complex and b) designed/grown by itself. You'll have either the computer from the U.S.S. Enterprise or H.A.L.
Side question: What is CYC doing these days?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
The former could be considered self-repair, but it is limited as you don't have to have much in the way of an error to totally swamp most error-correction codes.
The second form isn't really self-repair as much as it is damage control. This is just as important as self-repair, as you can't do much repair work if your software can't run.
On the whole, "normal" systems don't need any kind of self-repair, beyond the basic error-correction codes. Instead, you are likely better off to have a "hot fail-over" system - two systems running in parallel with the same data, only one of them is kept "silent". Both take input from the same source(s), and so should have identical states at all times, with no synchronization required.
If the "active" one fails, just "unsilence" the other one and restore the first one's state. If the "silent" one fails, all you do is copy the state over.
However, computers are deterministic. Two identical machines, performing identical operations, will always produce identical results. Therefore, in order to have a meaningful hot fail-over of the kind described, the two can't be identical. They have to be different enough to not fail under identical conditions, but be similar enough that you can trivially switch the output from one to the other without anybody noticing.
eg: The use of a Linux box on an AMD running Roxen, and an OpenBSD box on an Intel running Apache, would be pretty much guaranteed not to have common points of failure. If you used a keepalive daemon for each box to monitor the other's health, you could easily ensure that only one box was "talking" at a time, even if both were receiving.
The added complexity is minimal, which is always good for reliability, and the result is as good or better than any existing software self-repair method out there.
Now, you can't always use such solutions. Anything designed to work in space, these days, uses a combination of the above techniques to extend the lifetime of the computer. By dynamically monitoring the health of the components, re-routing data flow as needed, and repairing data/code stored in transistors that have become damaged, you ensure the system will keep functioning.
Transistors get destroyed by radiation quite easily. If you didn't have some kind of self-repair/damage-control, you'd either be using chips with transistors which may or may not work, or you'd have to scrub the entire chip after a single transistor went.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)