FSI Device Driver Error Isolation Logic
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
In complex computer systems with numerous interconnected devices, existing fault isolation methods are inefficient, leading to excessive FRU callouts and high service costs due to the lack of granular error identification and reliance on platform-specific hard-coded look-up lists or errno values, which result in longer service times and increased resource burdens.
Innovation Solution
A system and method that uses a device driver with novel fault isolation logic to generate a logical error identifier, mapping errors to specific segments of the system using a self-describing system model, thereby reducing the number of unnecessary FRU callouts and improving fault isolation efficiency across various interfaces.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If conventional hardware concurrent maintenance is used with hard-coded look-up lists, then fault isolation can be performed, but the number of FRU callouts is excessive and service time is prolonged
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the error identification process by introducing a logical error identifier that divides the system into specific segments or components. Instead of treating the entire system as a single unit, the error is mapped to a particular segment, allowing maintenance personnel to focus on only the relevant component rather than checking all FRUs systematically.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a logical error identifier as an intermediary between the hardware error and the FRU callout list. This intermediary translates the raw error into a meaningful segment identification, enabling direct mapping to the faulty component without requiring extensive lookup tables or systematic checking of all possible FRUs.
2Reliability
If platform-specific hard-coded look-up lists are used for error isolation, then fault identification can be achieved, but device complexity and resource burden increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent creates a universal logical error identifier that can be applied across multiple platforms and device types. Instead of requiring platform-specific hard-coded look-up lists, the same logical error identification mechanism works across different systems, reducing the need for platform-specific implementations and lowering overall system complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent uses a standardized logical error identifier format that can be copied and applied across different platforms. This standardized approach eliminates the need to create and maintain separate error identification systems for each platform, reducing complexity while maintaining reliable fault identification.
3Adaptability or versatility
If errno values are used for error identification, then basic error types can be identified, but granular error identification and component-level isolation are insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The patent adds another dimension to error identification by introducing a logical error identifier that provides component-level granularity. While errno values provide basic error type identification in one dimension, the logical error identifier adds a second dimension of specificity, enabling identification of the exact component or segment where the error occurred.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments the error identification process by dividing the system into specific components or segments, each with its own logical error identifier. This segmentation allows for granular error identification at the component level, going beyond the coarse-grained errno values to pinpoint the exact location of the fault.
Data Source
AI summary
Fault isolation for a computer system having multiple FRUs in an FSI chain uses logic embedded in a device driver to determine first failure data and a logical error identifier. The logical error identifier represents a hardware logical area of the fault. The fault is then mapped to a segment of the system based on a self-describing system model which includes FRU boundary relationships for the devices. Operation of the device driver is carried out by a flexible service processor. The device driver uses the first failure data to identify a link at a failure point corresponding to the fault and determine a failure type at the link, then maps the link and the failure type to the logical error identifier. After identifying the segment, the device driver can generate a list of callouts of the field replaceable units associated with the segment which require replacement.