The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Proactive management of software aging
Abstract
Software failures are now known to be a dominant source of system outages. Several studies and much anecdotal evidence point to “software aging” as a common phenomenon, in which the state of a software system degrades with time. Exhaustion of system resources, data corruption, and numerical error accumulation are the primary symptoms of this degradation, which may eventually lead to performance degradation of the software, crash/hang failure, or other undesirable effects. “Software rejuvenation” is a proactive technique intended to reduce the probability of future unplanned outages due to aging. The basic idea is to pause or halt the running software, refresh its internal state, and resume or restart it. Software rejuvenation can be performed by relying on a variety of indicators of aging, or on the time elapsed since the last rejuvenation. In response to the strong desire of customers to be provided with advance notice of unplanned outages, our group has developed techniques that dete ct the occurrence of software aging due to resource exhaustion, estimate the time remaining until the exhaustion reaches a critical level, and automatically perform proactive software rejuvenation of an application, process group, or entire operating system, depending on the pervasiveness of the resource exhaustion and our ability to pinpoint the source. This technology has been incorporated into the IBM Director for xSeries servers. To quantitatively evaluate the impact of different rejuvenation policies on the availability of cluster systems, we have developed analytical models based on stochastic reward nets (SRNs). For time-based rejuvenation policies, we determined the optimal rejuvenation interval based on system availability and cost. We also analyzed a rejuvenation policy based on prediction, and showed that it can further increase system availability and reduce downtime cost. These models are very general and can capture a multitude of cluster system characteristics, failure behavior, and performabil ity measures, which we are just beginning to explore.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bozdogan, H. (1987) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294361 · Cited by 4,468
Cited by
A survey of online failure prediction methods
Salfner, F., Lenk, M., & Malek, M. (2010) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1670679.1670680 · Cited by 560
Analysis of Software Aging in a Web Server
Grottke, M., Li, L., Vaidyanathan, K., & Trivedi, K. S. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Reliability · doi:10.1109/tr.2006.879609 · Cited by 285
Self-citationA survey of AIOps methods for failure management
Notaro, P., Cardoso, J., & Gerndt, M. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3483424 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Castelli, V., Harper, R. E., Heidelberger, P., Hunter, S. W., Trivedi, K. S., Vaidyanathan, K., & Zeggert, W. P.
- Venue
- IBM Journal of Research and Development
- Publisher
- IBM
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 311-332
- ISSN
- 0018-8646 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169246841
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proactive management of software aging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1147/rd.452.0311
- The paper
- Castelli, V., Harper, R. E., Heidelberger, P., Hunter, S. W., Trivedi, K. S., Vaidyanathan, K., & Zeggert, W. P. (2001). Proactive management of software aging. IBM Journal of Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.452.0311
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.