Universal Task Scheduler with Checkpointing for Military Systems
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current computer systems, especially in military environments, face challenges with task scheduling and management due to closed architectural designs, which are costly, time-consuming, and labor-intensive, lacking flexibility and interoperability, and do not provide efficient recovery mechanisms for application-level tasks.
Innovation Solution
A software architectural framework that supports task processing through multiple priority queues, allowing developers to model logical threads as processor functions with developer-provided rules for decision-making, enabling task scheduling, recovery, and fail-over strategies at the application level, using checkpointing and persistence mechanisms.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If closed architectural designs are used in military computer systems, then each system can be optimized for specific functions, but the systems become expensive, time-consuming, and labor-intensive to design, build, maintain, and operate
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a universal task scheduler that can manage multiple types of tasks across different applications and hardware platforms. The scheduler uses standardized data structures and interfaces that allow it to operate with various task types (periodic, aperiodic, real-time, non-real-time) without requiring separate scheduling systems for each application, thereby reducing overall system complexity while maintaining reliability.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments the scheduling function into independent, modular components including task definition structures, priority queue management, and execution control mechanisms. This segmentation allows the scheduling system to be developed, tested, and maintained independently from application-specific code, reducing the complexity burden of closed architectural designs.
2Adaptability or versatility
If multiple independent computer systems are used for different functions, then each system can operate independently, but multiple teams, spare parts inventories, installations, and support infrastructures are required
Solution Approach 1:
The task scheduler is designed with universal interfaces and standardized task structures that enable it to manage diverse task types across multiple applications. The system can handle periodic tasks, aperiodic tasks, real-time tasks, and non-real-time tasks through a unified scheduling mechanism, allowing a single system to perform multiple functions that previously required separate dedicated systems.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements dynamic task creation, modification, and deletion capabilities that allow the system to adapt to changing operational requirements. The scheduler can dynamically adjust task priorities, add new task types, and modify existing tasks without requiring system reconfiguration, providing the adaptability of multiple specialized systems while maintaining a single unified platform.
3Ease of operation
If traditional task scheduling is used without application-level control, then the operating system can manage basic tasks, but developers cannot implement custom recovery mechanisms or checkpointing strategies
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements checkpointing mechanisms that save task state information at predetermined intervals or upon completion of critical operations. This preliminary action allows the system to capture task state before failures occur, enabling recovery without requiring complex real-time intervention. Developers can configure checkpoint frequency and triggers to match application-specific recovery requirements.
Solution Approach 2:
The task scheduler includes monitoring and feedback mechanisms that track task execution status, resource usage, and error conditions. This feedback information is used to trigger recovery actions, adjust task priorities, and notify developers of system state changes. The feedback loop enables automated recovery mechanisms while maintaining developer control over recovery strategies.
4Device complexity
If developers cannot control task scheduling at the application level, then the system maintains simple operating system-level scheduling, but custom processing logic and decision rules cannot be implemented
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the scheduling control into two layers: operating system-level resource management and application-level task logic. The task scheduler provides standardized interfaces for task submission and management, while developers can implement custom processing logic within task routines. This segmentation allows complex custom processing without increasing operating system scheduling complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The task scheduler acts as an intermediary layer between the operating system and application logic. It provides a standardized interface for task submission, priority management, and execution control, while allowing developers to insert custom processing logic in the task execution path. This intermediary approach enables custom processing capability without requiring the operating system itself to become more complex.
Data Source
AI summary
A computer-implemented method for performing a process is provided. The method comprises: (a) receiving a request to perform a process, the process comprising a plurality of tasks and at least a scheduler rule; (b) receiving a plurality of checkpoints associated with the process, each checkpoint comprising checkpoint state data and at least a respective checkpoint rule governing execution of the process; (c) determining a first task of the plurality of tasks to be scheduled into a priority queue, in accordance with the scheduler rule; (d) determining the first checkpoint of the plurality of checkpoints that is to be the first checkpoint used in processing the first task, in accordance with the scheduler rule; (e) creating the checkpoint state data for the first checkpoint; (f) saving the checkpoint state data for the first checkpoint; (g) processing the first task in accordance with the checkpoint rule associated with the first checkpoint; (h) determining the next task in the plurality of tasks to perform, based on the checkpoint rule associated with the first checkpoint; (i) updating the saved checkpoint data for the first checkpoint with the data and state associated with the first task; and (j) repeating steps (c) through (i) for each subsequent task and checkpoint, in accordance with the respective scheduler and checkpoint rules, until a predetermined condition has been reached.