Customer Disaster Recovery Workload Modeling and Resource Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Software testing often fails to identify all issues in customer software before release, leading to problems in production environments due to inadequate understanding of client environments and workload profiling.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that compare customer production and disaster recovery workloads to identify differences, update ineffective resources, and optimize disaster recovery resources to match production environments, utilizing workload modeling and data collection techniques.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional software testing methods are used, then testing can be completed with standard procedures, but software problems remain unidentified in production environments

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesoftware reliabilityVSAvoidproblem detection accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by collecting and analyzing production workload characteristics before software release, creating a baseline profile of normal operations. This allows testing to be tailored to actual usage patterns, improving problem detection accuracy while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The invention changes testing parameters by dynamically adjusting test workloads based on collected production characteristics. Instead of using fixed test parameters, the system modifies testing conditions to match actual production environments, thereby improving both reliability and detection precision.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If comprehensive software testing is performed to identify all problems, then software reliability improves, but testing time and resources increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesoftware reliabilityVSAvoidtesting time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies local quality by focusing testing efforts on specific areas identified through production workload analysis. Instead of uniformly testing all software functions, it concentrates resources on critical paths and high-risk areas, improving reliability while reducing overall testing time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The invention uses partial action by performing targeted testing on selected workload scenarios rather than exhaustive testing of all possible conditions. This approach achieves sufficient reliability for critical functions while significantly reducing testing time and resources.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Reliability

If disaster recovery resources are allocated to match production environments exactly, then business continuity is ensured, but resource costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvebusiness continuityVSAvoiddisaster recovery resources

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial action by allocating disaster recovery resources for only the most critical workload characteristics identified through analysis. Instead of replicating entire production environments, it focuses on essential functions, ensuring business continuity while reducing resource requirements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The invention uses local quality by providing differentiated disaster recovery capabilities matched to specific workload priorities. Critical workloads receive full recovery resources while less critical functions receive scaled-back recovery capacity, optimizing the balance between business continuity and resource costs.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

4Productivity

If disaster recovery environments are simplified to reduce costs, then resource efficiency improves, but effectiveness in recovering production workloads decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresource efficiencyVSAvoiddisaster recovery effectiveness

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes parameters by dynamically configuring disaster recovery environments based on actual production workload characteristics. Instead of using fixed simplified or fully replicated configurations, it adjusts recovery capacity parameters to match observed production needs, achieving both efficiency and effectiveness.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS10255142B2Using run time and historical customer profiling and analytics to determine customer disaster recovery vs. production differences, and to enhance customer disaster recovery readiness and effectiveness

Publication Date: 2019.04.09 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION

AI summary

Aspects of the present invention include a method, system and computer program product. The method includes a processor setting one or more characteristics related to customer production; collecting customer production data; modeling a customer disaster recovery workload in relation to a corresponding customer production workload; collecting customer disaster recovery data; comparing the customer disaster recovery data to the customer production data; determining that at least one difference exists between the customer disaster recovery data and the customer production data; and determining from the at least one difference between the customer disaster recovery data and the customer production data, one or more ineffective customer disaster recovery resources and updating the one or more ineffective customer disaster recovery resources.