Hardware Topology Dependency Analysis for Data Center Upgrades

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current data center upgrade processes lack effective methods to assess and manage dependencies between hardware, instructions, and firmware components, leading to potential compatibility issues and increased downtime during upgrades.

Innovation Solution

A recommendation device that determines dependencies within a hardware topology, compares upgrade properties to these dependencies, and generates recommendations for deploying upgrades, including potential intermediate upgrades to ensure compatibility and minimize downtime.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If upgrade deployment is performed without dependency assessment, then upgrade speed is improved, but compatibility issues increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveupgrade deployment speedVSAvoidupgrade compatibility

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary dependency assessment and compatibility checking before upgrade deployment. It analyzes hardware topology, identifies dependencies between components, and determines compatibility requirements in advance, allowing administrators to prepare appropriate upgrade sequences and intermediate upgrades without delaying the actual deployment process

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces intermediate upgrades as mediator components between the current system state and the target upgrade state. These intermediate upgrades serve as stepping stones that resolve compatibility conflicts by gradually transitioning dependencies, enabling the main upgrade to be deployed successfully while maintaining system reliability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If comprehensive dependency analysis is performed, then compatibility is improved, but analysis time increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveupgrade compatibilityVSAvoiddependency analysis time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the hardware topology into discrete components and analyzes dependencies in a structured, modular fashion. By breaking down the complex system into individual hardware elements, instructions, and firmware components, the analysis can be performed systematically without overwhelming computational overhead, reducing overall analysis time while maintaining comprehensive compatibility checking

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

3Reliability

If intermediate upgrades are deployed, then compatibility is improved, but number of deployment steps increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveupgrade compatibilityVSAvoiddeployment process complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically determines the necessary intermediate upgrades based on the specific hardware topology and dependency relationships identified during analysis. Rather than applying a fixed sequence of intermediate upgrades to all systems, the solution adapts the deployment plan to match the actual system configuration, reducing unnecessary deployment steps while ensuring compatibility requirements are met

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS11561782B2Upgrade recommendations

Publication Date: 2023.01.24 HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP

AI summary

An example recommendation device can include a memory resource storing instructions executable by a processing resource to: determine dependencies of a hardware topology, determine properties of an upgrade to be performed on the hardware topology, compare the properties of the upgrade to the determined dependencies of the hardware topology to identify potential events, and generate a recommendation for deploying the upgrade on the hardware topology based on the comparison.