ML Node Failure Source Detection in Distributed Computing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In distributed computing environments, detecting the source of node failures before they are fenced or rebooted is challenging, leading to increased latency and potential ongoing failures due to unknown causes.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a machine learning model trained on node characteristics to determine the source of failures, allowing for targeted recovery operations such as reconnecting nodes that lost connectivity or isolating nodes affected by cybersecurity attacks, rather than automatically fencing them.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If automatic fencing or reboot is performed when node failure is detected, then system reliability is maintained, but latency increases and the source of failure remains unknown

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem reliabilityVSAvoidlatency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary diagnostic actions by collecting node characteristics (resource usage, process information, network connectivity) before executing recovery operations. This allows the failure source to be identified in advance, enabling targeted recovery actions that reduce latency while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback by continuously monitoring node characteristics and using this information to determine the failure source. The monitored data feeds back into the decision-making process, allowing the system to identify whether a node needs reconnecting, process termination, or reboot, thereby reducing unnecessary latency while maintaining system reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Productivity

If automatic fencing is performed without identifying failure source, then recovery operations can be executed quickly, but unnecessary reboots occur and shared resources remain vulnerable

Engineering Contradiction:
Improverecovery operation speedVSAvoidunnecessary reboots and vulnerable resources
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies local quality by tailoring recovery operations to the specific failure source identified for each node. Instead of applying a uniform reboot policy, the system determines the appropriate recovery action (reconnecting, terminating processes, or rebooting) based on the specific characteristics and failure mode of each node, thereby avoiding unnecessary reboots and protecting shared resources.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces the mechanical/default recovery action (automatic reboot/fencing) with an intelligent decision-making process that analyzes node characteristics. This substitution allows the system to choose the most appropriate recovery action based on the actual failure source, eliminating unnecessary reboots and reducing the vulnerability of shared resources.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Measurement precision

If node characteristics are monitored and analyzed using machine learning, then failure source detection accuracy improves, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefailure source detection accuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces an intermediary layer in the form of a machine learning model that processes node characteristics and determines failure sources. This intermediary component simplifies the overall system architecture by providing a clear separation between data collection, analysis, and recovery operations, making the complex analysis manageable and scalable.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The machine learning model serves multiple functions: it analyzes various node characteristics (resource usage, process information, network connectivity), identifies failure sources, and guides recovery operations. This multi-functionality consolidates what would otherwise require multiple separate systems into a single unified approach, managing complexity while improving detection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS20240289224A1Node failure source detection in distributed computing environments using machine learning
Publication Date: 2024.08.29 RED HAT INC
  • US20240289224A1 patent drawing
  • US20240289224A1 patent drawing
  • US20240289224A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Sources of node failures in distributed computing environments can be determined using machine learning according to some aspects described herein. For example, prior to rebooting a node in a distributed computing environment, a computing system can execute a software agent to detect a failure with respect to the node. In response to detecting the failure, the computing system can input characteristics for the node into a trained machine learning model. The computing system can receive a source of the failure with respect to the node. The computing system can then automatically execute a recovery operation for the node based on the source of the failure.