Chapter-1

1
 Chapter-1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Most studies have taken into account a portion a software subsystem, a hardware
subsystem, or the system itself in order to simulate system reliability. Many
software and hardware reliability models have been developed during the last few
decades in an effort to address failures in software and hardware subsystems,
respectively, from distinct angles and taking into account numerous important
applications. In most research, Software and hardware components are taken for
granted as autonomous since the relationships between them are frequently
disregarded in an effort to streamline mathematical formulation. This presumption
might not be accurate in practice, though. Computer models, including analytical
models, simulation models, and hybrid models, have gained prominence as essential
tools in assessing system reliability. This paper delivers into the various aspects of
using computer models for analyzing computer system reliability, providing insights
into their benefits, challenges, and applications.
The complexity of equipment and settings has been on the rise as computer systems
strive to operate as efficiently as possible. A single indicator of a system's
effectiveness is dependability, which is the likelihood considering the setup
successfully completes it planned purpose to serve a predetermined amount the
period spent beneath predetermined ecological circumstance. In case a suitable
quantitative framework for the system can be created, reliability can be calculated
using that model. As computer systems attempt to function as effectively as
possible, the complexity of the tools and environments has increased.
Dependability, or the likelihood that a system will carry out its intended duty
successfully for a controlled setting for a certain amount of time, is one sign of a
system's efficacy. Reliability can be determined using the system's mathematical
model, if one can be developed.
As computer systems attempt to function as effectively as possible, the complexity
of the tools and environments has increased. Consistency, or the likelihood that a
system will carry out its intended duty successfully regarding a set duration term
predetermined ecological circumstance, is one sign of a system's efficacy.
Reliability can be determined using the system's mathematical model, if one can be
developed. A topological reliability model takes system structure at a given point in
time into account for determining dependability. The entire system reliability
model, which takes into account the software and hardware subsystems, was only
partially defined in a few researches. A dependability model that is reliant on time,
on that other hand, treats the structure's features state as a stochastic technique, with
dependability being determined as a process-level operational metric. Within the
parts that follow, let’s talk about a few particular exemplary models that are either
structural, stochastic, or both.
The body of research on computer system dependability models is vast and
encompasses a wide range of methods and strategies. This involves examining the
dependability properties of various system configurations using decomposable
Markov processes, and differential equations. Further research is being done in the
areas of fault coverage, system repair, and maintenance features integration with
reliability analysis. Several computational and mathematical techniques are used to
assess the dependability of computer systems, with the final model selection based

2
 on the trade-off between tractability and realism. Models like the Hybrid Automated
Reliability Predictor (HARP) combine analytical and simulation models using
subsystems to overcome limitations posed by ultrahigh reliability predictor models.
The decomposition-aggregation approach permits the use of appropriate solution
techniques for sub-networks. Reliability models for computer systems are still being
researched and developed, with an emphasis on enhancing realism and tractability,
adding maintenance functions, and tackling the difficulties involved in
comprehending complex systems.
The introduction provides an overview of reliability models for computer systems,
emphasizing the importance of effective modeling techniques to assess system
reliability. It introduces various modeling approaches, including fault coverage,
systems with repair, and availability, highlighting the use of differential equations
and Markov process models in analyzing system reliability characteristics. The text
also discusses the incorporation of maintenance features in reliability analysis and
the estimation of coverage probability. Additionally, it introduces dataflow graphs as
a potential modeling technique and mentions the use of structure models and simple
stochastic models in reliability analysis. The introduction sets the stage for exploring
different modeling methods and their applications in assessing system performance
and effectiveness.

1.2 Literature Survey

Many kinds of research have been conducted to study the problem of utilizing a
stochastic analysis of computing models in computer system reliability based on
hardware and software methodological that listed below.

Park & Baik J [2015] describe innovative systematic reliability prediction

framework designed to enhance accuracy in software reliability forecasting. The
framework is characterized by its dynamic selection and fusion of various software
reliability models through the application of decision tree learning based on multi-
criteria evaluation. By leveraging the strengths of multiple models in a strategic and
adaptive manner, this approach aims to provide a comprehensive and robust
prediction mechanism for estimating software reliability. This methodological
advancement is crucial in today's technology landscape, where the dependability of
software systems plays a critical role in ensuring user satisfaction and system
performance. The incorporation of decision trees as a learning tool adds a layer of
sophistication to the prediction process, enabling the framework to adapt to diverse
scenarios and optimize its forecasting capabilities. Overall, this framework
represents a significant step forward in the domain of software reliability, offering a
promising avenue for achieving more accurate and reliable predictions in the field.

Lung & Rajewaran [2016] gave innovative self-adaptive framework designed

specifically for distributed and parallel software systems. This framework
seamlessly integrates various architectural patterns, state-of-the-art monitoring
mechanisms, and advanced adaptive capabilities. By leveraging these components
synergistically, the framework efficiently addresses the common challenge of over-
provisioning in such systems. Through a combination of real-time performance
analysis and dynamic resource allocation, it enables software systems to
autonomously respond to changing workload demands. Furthermore, the framework
facilitates the optimization of system resources by intelligently scaling resources up

3
or down based on runtime requirements. This holistic approach not only enhances
system performance but also minimizes unnecessary resource utilization, ultimately
resulting in improved cost-effectiveness and scalability. With its emphasis on
adaptability and efficiency, the framework offers a practical solution for optimizing
resource usage in distributed and parallel environments, ensuring that software
systems operate at peak efficiency while reducing the potential for wastage.

Xiao & Dhillion [2017] gave a novel method analyzing the reliability of repairable
systems with multifunction modes has been introduced, which introduces innovative
operators, rules, and algorithms specifically tailored for heavy vehicle control
systems. This method not only enhances the existing theory of the GO method but
also presents a fresh perspective on conducting reliability analysis in a swift and
effective manner. By incorporating this new approach, researchers and practitioners
in the field can benefit from a more comprehensive toolset that enables them to
accurately assess the reliability of complex systems under various operational
scenarios. This advancement in reliability analysis techniques signifies a significant
milestone in the ongoing evolution of methods used to ensure the dependability and
performance of critical systems in the heavy vehicle industry. With the introduction
of these new operators and algorithms, the process of conducting reliability analysis
becomes more streamlined and efficient, offering a practical solution for addressing
the unique challenges posed by multifunctional modes in repairable systems,
particularly those employed in heavy vehicles where operational reliability is
paramount.

Gaofeng & Paolo [2018] gave a comprehensive stochastic framework designed

to accurately capture and analyze the effects of deterioration on engineering
systems. This framework takes into account various intricate processes and state
variables, allowing for a detailed examination of both gradual deterioration as well
as sudden, shock-induced degradation. By incorporating multiple dimensions of
deterioration, the proposed model offers a nuanced understanding of how these
factors interact within engineering systems, shedding light on the complex dynamics
at play. In essence, this stochastic framework provides a valuable tool for engineers
and researchers to more effectively assess and predict the evolution of system
performance over time. Through its systematic approach and consideration of
diverse deterioration scenarios, the paper contributes to advancing the field's
understanding of how these processes manifest and influence system behavior,
paving the way for more informed decision-making and enhanced maintenance
strategies in engineering applications.

Zhu & Pham [2018] describe the interactions between hardware and software
subsystems are commonly overlooked within system reliability models, impacting
the accuracy of reliability predictions. To address this issue, researchers developed a
Markov-based unified system reliability model. This model aims to enhance
reliability forecasting by effectively defining system failures and accounting for the
intricate relationship between hardware and software components.

Salehi & Tavangar [2019] we studied the conditional RL and conditional IT of the
components in m-out-of-n and coherent systems with exchangeable components.
First we extracted an explicit expression for the reliability functions of conditional
RL and conditional IT of the system with arbitrarily dependent components. Under

4
the MTP2 assumption, we proved that the conditional RL (con ditional IT) is
stochastically decreasing (increasing) in r or k, for fixed value of the sample size.
Also giving a counterexample, we showed that the MTP2 property of the joint
density function of X is a necessary assumption for obtaining the results.
Furthermore, assuming more limited conditions, it is shown that the conditional RL
(Xm:n − t | Xr:n ≤ t < Xk:n) is stochastically non-increasing in n. Finally, some
results are presented for coherent systems based on conditional RL. The findings of
the paper can be used in reliability analysis of engineering systems consisting of
exchangeable components.

Yadav & Malik [2022] explain stochastic analysis in computer systems, researchers
approach the study by implementing assumptions that involve the potential failure
of the service facility. Through this approach, various crucial performance metrics
such as Mean Time to System Failure (MTSF), system availability, and the profit
function are monitored and found to exhibit a noticeable decline as the hardware
failure rate and software up-graduation rate increase. This significant observation
sheds light on the critical relationship between system reliability and the continuous
improvements made in the software components. By identifying these key factors,
analysts are able to better understand the implications of hardware failures and
software enhancements on the overall system performance and operational
profitability. This analysis serves as a valuable tool for decision-makers in
optimizing system maintenance strategies, allocating resources efficiently, and
enhancing the system's reliability and robustness against potential failures.
Embracing stochastic analysis techniques in studying computer systems provides a
comprehensive perspective on the interconnectedness between hardware and
software elements, allowing for informed decision-making processes and proactive
measures in mitigating risks associated with system failures.

Kavid, Alshehri [2023] Stochastic comparisons and bounds offer valuable insights
into the lifetime of used standby systems. These comparisons reveal that systems
incorporating used components tend to exhibit higher reliability levels and lower
risk profiles when compared to their counterparts that solely rely on new
components. This finding has significant implications for the field of engineering
optimization, suggesting that leveraging used components in standby systems can
lead to improved performance and longevity. By taking into account the reliability
benefits associated with used components, engineers can make more informed
decisions when designing and optimizing systems for various applications.
Embracing the concept of using pre-owned components in standby systems may not
only enhance overall system performance but also contribute to cost-effectiveness
and sustainability efforts within the engineering sector. It is essential for researchers
and practitioners in the field to consider these stochastic comparisons and bounds
when exploring opportunities to enhance the reliability and risk management of
standby systems through the integration of used components.

5
Chapter-2

6
 Chapter-2

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Introduction
In this, chapter the basic theoretical side of a stochastic analysis of computing
models in computer system reliability based on hardware and software are
discussed in details. A summarized introduction to models is given. In this chapter
the same basic concepts used in the computing models filed. Also, some of the
widely use mathematical probability and techniques. Finally, the best model was
described.

1. Structure Models
Stochastic networks frequently serve as tools for the examination of intricate
systems; their arcs indicate each of the elements of the system. As a consequence, a
likelihood that what a part does is equal to the statistical the fact that the relevant
network electric performs. A network's trustworthiness is determined by the
likelihood that the line connecting the origin and exit nodes is made up only of
functional loops. The dependability issue is changed with this network model to the
difficulty of determining the paths through the connection as well as the resulting
likelihood [20]
The material that is presented makes no mention of a "structure model." On the
other hand, it covers computer system reliability models, which include calculating
system dependability by taking into account the system's stochastic process as well
as its structure. It also discusses the decomposition-aggregation method to
dependability modeling and the usage of decomposable stochastic models. Complex
systems may be broken down into smaller, more manageable components using
these models. These components can then be examined separately and combined to
determine the overall system dependability. This methodology furnishes a structure
for evaluating the dependability and efficiency of computer systems and permits the
use of suitable resolution methodologies for sub-networks. The article also
addresses the potential modeling approach of using dataflow graphs, which are
structural representations of the control flow and instruction execution of the
system. As a result, even if the book doesn't describe a "structure model"
specifically, it does discuss how system structure is included in dependability
modeling.
A dependability network's structure is characterized by structural functions. Think
of a system with r members, such as A 1, A2…..Az. connect a state variable yi in a
way that

{
1 If Ai is operating
yi =
2 if Ai Has not succeeded

In a similar way, establish the status parameter yi.

1 Provided that the system functions

xi =
{ 2 Should the system malfunction

7
It is now possible to design an operation ϕ such that

x = ϕ(y1 , y2 , ………yr ); (1)

The expression "structure functions" characterises this. Structure functions that are
homogenous (sometimes referred to as coherent) may be used to depict reliability
networks. The configuration of the function is present, for instance, within a
network of sequence with r elements.

r
x = Π y1, (2)
i=1

When at least one component in a parallel r-component network having the

structural function is required for the system to succeed,
r
x = 1 - Π (1 - y1) (3)
i=1
Since a unit's dependability is determined by the likelihood that the matching state
statistic y will take on the integer 1 when every aspect of the network runs apart
from the others, the reliability of a network is calculated by substituting the y's in
the structure function with the corresponding reliabilities. Let q i for instance,
represent the component A's (i = 1, 2……m) reliability. Then, accordingly, the
reliability of the concurrent (paral) and sequential (ser) structures is ascertained.

r
Rscr = Π qI
i=1 (4)
r
Rparal = 1 – Π (1-qi)
i=1

One can use minimal paths or lowest deletions of the foundation graph to find the
basic functions of a given trustworthiness networks. Structure models are essential
in reliability analysis as they provide a systematic way to understand the reliability
of complex systems based on their topological structure at a given moment in time
For an in-depth analysis of structural function characteristics and how crucial they
are in establishing the reliability of intricate structures. Graph theoretic topics like
path, state, and cutset enumerations are commonly utilized in stochastic network
techniques for dependability computation. The fact that the number of operations
increases linearly via network growth is an important bug in present scanning
algorithms.
If the network consists of n nodes, then 2" states need to be considered. Using path
enumeration techniques, Inclusion-Exclusion Hypothesis for The likelihood is
applied to determine the probabilities from the identified pathways. Let Nr be the
likelihood that precisely s of the n pathways (A1,A2,……. An) Connecting Along
with the outcome of the node, the inputting node k are functional. It is now likely
that at least one of the channels functions are supplied by.

8
 R1 = N1 – N2 + N3 - …..±Nn (5)

Furthermore, it's probably the case that at least m of the n routes operate are
provided by

v
Ru= ⅀ (-1)s-u s – 1 Ns (6)
s=u u–1
u-1
Many of the elements in (5) are cancelled as a result of the inclusion-exclusion
principle, and their presence originally makes the issue larger. An algorithm
founded on the idea of hegemony in the network's foundational topology that uses
just the no cancelling terms of (5). For further developments of this method and
associated outcomes. For a superb analysis of network dependability that makes use
of special structure and dominance theory. The decomposition method and the
usage of upper and lower bounds are further methods for simplifying the issue.
Other algorithms have been discussed as well.
Structure models are essential in reliability analysis as they provide a systematic
way to understand the reliability of complex systems based on their topological
structure at a given moment in time. By considering the relationships between
system components as arcs in a stochastic network, structure models enable the
determination of system reliability by identifying paths through the network and
calculating the resulting probabilities of system functionality. These components
can then be examined separately and combined to determine the overall system
dependability. This methodology furnishes a structure for evaluating the
dependability and efficiency of computer systems and permits the use of suitable
resolution methodologies for sub-networks
Moreover, structure models play a crucial role in reliability analysis by offering
insights into the system's architecture and how the components interact, which is
fundamental for assessing system reliability and performance. These models help in
identifying critical paths, weak points, and potential failure modes within the
system, allowing for targeted improvements to enhance overall system reliability .
In digital networks, parallel processing is a unique problem that regularly arises and
has drawn a lot of attention. The basis of this technique is the concurrent execution
of many computing steps. Many kinds of graph theoretic methods have been tried
and failed to resolve this challenge. The most effective strategy to date has been
reduction, which considers necessary consecutive curves as curves arranged in
order. Structure models are important in reliability analysis as they provide a
foundational framework for evaluating system reliability based on the system's
topological structure and relationships between components Should just a portion of
the comparable curve be needed the set of parallel curves is replaced by just one
curve that has faithfulness equal to the concurrent set.

2. Simple Markovian Models

A complex system is one that has a large number of interdependent components.
Numerous important contemporary applications, like computing and
communication systems, are made up of numerous hardware and software
components. Generally speaking, the overall system could be the result of one or
more component failures. Three categories are used in this study's classification of

9
system failures. [22]
Consider a system the fact consists of two halves, one of is operating and the other
of which is in reserve. Let λ 2(λ2 ≤ λ1) represent the (steady) inability speed of the
part that is functioning and λ1 represent how frequently the back-up portion fails.
Under this assumption, there are two methods to assess dependability (constant
failure rate implies exponential life spans). Starting with the simpler approach, let's
identify the events that facilitate the system's smooth functioning between (0, h).
Let Qn (z) represent the likelihood that n(n = 0, 1, 2) is the integer of inability
components during (0, r).
Clearly, there is a probability density

Qn (z) = exp (-λ 1 z) exp(-λ 2 z) = exp[-(λ 1 + λ 2)z] (7)

Both the operational and the standby components may fail when one component
does. In the latter scenario, the backup component quickly replaces the failed
component. So, we obtain
z
Qn (z) = exp(-λ 1 z) [1 - exp(-λ 2 z)] + ꭍ λ 1 exp(-λ 1 Z)exp(-λ 2 Z)exp[-λ 1 (z-Z)]dz
0
= [(λ1 + λ 2) / λ 2]{exp(-λ 1 z)exp[-(λ 1 + λ 2)z]} (8)

Now, trustworthiness R (z) may be found as

R (z) = Q0(z) + Q1(z)

= [(λ1 + λ 2) / λ 2]{exp(-λ 1 z)-(λ 1 / λ 2)exp[-(λ 1 + λ 2)z] (9)

The duration until the first failure, which comes after the first failure and had an
exponential shape with an error rate of (λ 1 + λ 2), and the duration until the second
failure, which comes after the first malfunction and has an explosive distributions
with a failure rate of λ1, make up the system life. This results in a likelihood ratio
for the entire system's life span.

f (z) = ꭍ (λ 1 + λ 2)exp[-=(λ 1 + λ 2)Z]λ 1 exp[=[- λ 1 (z-Z)]dz

0
=(λ 1 / λ 2) (λ 1 + λ 2){exp=[(λ 1 z) – exp[-(λ 1 + λ 2)z] } (10)

This justification can also be used to systems Utilizing hybrid N-tuple adaptable
redundant work, or mix NMR. S + N independent components, of which S are
active and the other N are on standby, make up a hybrid NMn system. For the
system to work correctly, it needs at least u components. One of the system
components that comprise fault-tolerant computer systems is the hybrid NMR.

2.1 Fault Coverage

Fault coverage refers to the extent to which a testing process can detect and identify
faults or defects in a system. It is a measure of the effectiveness of the testing
process in uncovering potential issues within the system. A high fault coverage
indicates that the testing process is thorough and can identify a significant portion of
faults present in the system. Fault coverage is essential in ensuring the reliability
and quality of computer systems, as it helps in identifying and addressing potential

10
weaknesses or vulnerabilities that could impact system performance and
functionality. To make the model more realistic, the coverage parameter has been
incorporated to the creation of computer systems that can withstand faults. For
instance, when an online component fails in a hybrid NMn system, it might not be
able to swap in a spare part quickly enough to heal. If it occurs, the error is
considered to have been discovered. The coverage parameter is the likelihood that a
fault can be repaired.
Think about enhancing the one unit standby system that was previously proposed
with the coverage functionality. Let λ1 and λ 2 represent The reserve and on-line
sections' ongoing rate of breakdowns, as well at and. Let d¬1 and d2 stand for the
system's odds of recovering in the event that the online and standby units fail,
respectively. A straight Markov process approach might make sense in this case.
[17]

For the probability Q¬n (z) (n = 0, 1, and 2) We acquire the difference-differential

solutions since we know that the system comprises n failed units at time z.

Q/0 (z) = - (λ1 + λ 2) Q0 (z)

Q/1 (z) = - λ1 Q1 (z) + (λ1 d1 + λ2 d2)Q0(z)

Q/2 (z) = [(1 – d1)λ1 + (1 – d2)λ2]Q0(z) + λ1 Q1(z) (11)

Q1(0) = 1 for n' = -0 and = 0 in all other instances as the initial condition. Laplace
changes can be utilized to solve the array of problems (11) and generate.

Q0(z) = exp [- (λ1 + λ 2) z]

Q1 (z) = [(λ1 d1 + λ2 d2)λ2]{exp[-λ1 z] – exp[ - (λ1 + λ2)z]}

Q1 (z) = [(1 – d1)λ1 + (1 – d2)λ2] exp [-(λ1 + λ2) z] +

+ (λ1 / λ1) (λ1d1 + λ2 d2){exp (-λ1z) – exp[- (λ1 + λ2)z]} (12)

Note that the probability density of system life is also Q 2(z). Employing the
coverage parameter referred to as "equivalent"

d = (λ1 d1 + λ2 d2) / (λ1 + λ 2)

And keeping in mind that Q0 (z) + Q1 (1) provides the reliability R (z), we obtain

R (z) = exp [- (λ1 + λ 2) z] + [z (λ1 + λ 2) /λ 2] x

x {exp(-λ1 z) – exp [-(λ1 + λ 2)z]} (13)

The Laplace transforms (LT) of Q0(z)andQ1(z) can be used to directly Determine the
normal period of breakdown. In case that is all that matters. If ϕ n(ꝋ) represents the

11
 LT of Q0(z) and q(ꝋ) = ϕ0(ꝋ) + ϕ1 (ꝋ) , the anticipated framework's life E[L] is
provided below.

E [L] = ꭍ R (z)dz = lim q(ꝋ) (14)

0 ꝋ →0
=[1 / (λ1 + λ 2)] [1 + (λ1 + λ 2) d/λ1] (15)

The dependability characteristics of the hybrid NMR system mentioned before with
a coverage parameter can be obtained using a similar way. For the expression for E
[L], this is obtained using the conditional distribution justifications shown.
In the preceding case, the range of likelihood is known, as we predicted. Truly, in
life, estimation is challenging. Below is an indirect estimating approach that
provides more insight into the coverage phenomenon.
A Markov model that can be used to find errors looks like this one. The model
consists of five states. The states are in this order: A is the functional state; B is the
good state; E is the error state; D is the identification state; and F is the unsuccessful
state. Let λ represent the rate of error detection and â represent the rate at which A
creates errors. Assuming that the defects are intermittent in nature, the approach
alternates between the benign condition B, where no mistakes are created, and the
active state A.α (for A→B), and β(for B→A). The error state E can also be used to
identify the error. Allow the shift in rates to E→D and E→F, respectively, be qγ
and mγ (m = 1 - q). For constant transition rates, we have a Markov model and
exponential residency durations. Differential equations control the process.

mAˈ (z) = - (α + γ + δ)mA(z) + βmB(z)

mBˈ (z) = - βmB(z) + αmA(z)

mEˈ (z) = - γmE(z) + λmA(z)

mDˈ (z) = - δmA(z) + qγmEˈ(z)

mFˈ (z) = mγmE(z) (16)

With the original circumstance (0) = 1. By simplifying Laplace transforms in the

conventional way, we obtain

ϕ D(ꝋ) = (1/ꝋ)[δ + qγλ/ (ϕ + γ)]{(ϕ + β) / [(ϕ + β)( ꝋ + α + λ + δ) - αβ]

(17)

The likelihood that the defect will eventually be found before the system crashes is
clearly given by lim mD(z). As a result, the process's coverage probability can be
calculated using this probability. We provide an estimate of the coverage probability
using Laplace transform properties.

z→͚
d = lim m D(z ) = lim ꝋδD(ꝋ) = (δ + qλ) / (δ + ꝋ)
z→͚ ꝋ→0
(18)

12
2.2 Systems with Repair
Systems with repair refer to system configurations where maintenance activities,
such as repair or replacement of failed components, are incorporated into the
reliability analysis. In such systems, failed components can be repaired or replaced
to restore the system's functionality and reliability. The behavior of systems with
repair can be modeled using Markov process techniques, which are effective in
analyzing the reliability of systems with maintenance features.
In systems with repair, the reliability analysis considers not only the occurrence of
faults but also the repair processes that aim to restore the system to an operational
state. By incorporating maintenance features into the reliability modeling, the
system's availability and performance under repair actions can be evaluated,
providing insights into the system's overall reliability characteristics.
We have only considered unmaintained systems in the aforementioned examples,
when a malfunctioning component is simply replaced rather being fixed. These
characteristics of a suitable Markov process model are present in pure death
processes as they may be examined as Markov processes and with minimal
likelihood with qualifiers considerations. By incorporating maintenance features
into the reliability modeling, the system's availability and performance under repair
actions can be evaluated, providing insights into the system's overall reliability
characteristics But when the item's upkeep option is used, only Markov methods
succeed and conventional reasons collapse. Function—apart from a few simple
system setups. Here are a few instances of these issues.
Take the above-mentioned single-unit failover device using the upkeep feature into
mind. Let λ 1 and λ 2 represent the on-line and standby components' respective
constant failure rates. It is imperative that the repair time of a damaged item,
regardless of its online or standby mode usage, has an average value of and spreads
linearly. 1/μ. We now have the difference-differential equations regarding the
likelihoods mn(z) (n = 0, 1, 2) that At times, the framework z has n failed modules.

m0ˈ (z) = - (λ1 + λ 2)m0(z)+ μm1(z)

m1ˈ (z) = - (λ1 + μ)m1 (z) + (λ 1 + λ 2)m0(z)

m2ˈ (z) = λ 1 m1(z) (19)

mn(0) is initially referred to as 1 in the case that n is larger than 0 and identical to 0
in the other condition. If not, discover becomes 0. With the use of LT, these
equations can be solved. When a lacking coverage feature arrives to the model with
coverage likelihood, linear equations arise of d1 and d2.

m0ˈ (z) = - (λ1 + λ 2)m0(z)+ μm1(z)

m1ˈ (z) = - (λ1 + μ)m1 (z) + (λ 1d1 + λ 2d2)m0(z)

m2ˈ (z) = [(1 – d1)λ1 + (1 – d2)λ2]m0(z) + λ1m1(z) (20)

2.3 Availability
Another reliability trait that indicates the likelihood over the long term that the

13
system will be usable is availability. Systems with repair refer to system
configurations where maintenance activities, such as repair or replacement of failed
components, are incorporated into the reliability analysis. In such systems, failed
components can be repaired or replaced to restore the system's functionality and
reliability. The behavior of systems with repair can be modeled using Markov
process techniques, which are effective in analyzing the reliability of systems with
maintenance features. The reliability analysis considers not only the occurrence of
faults but also the repair processes that aim to restore the system to an operational
state. By incorporating maintenance features into the reliability modeling, the
system's availability and performance under repair actions can be evaluated,
providing insights into the system's overall reliability characteristics
In systems with repair, the only considered unmaintained systems in the
aforementioned examples, when a malfunctioning component is simply replaced
rather being fixed. These characteristics of a suitable Markov process model are
present in pure death processes as they may be examined as Markov processes and
with minimal likelihood with qualifiers considerations. By incorporating
maintenance features into the reliability modeling, the system's availability and
performance under repair actions can be evaluated, providing insights into the
system's overall reliability characteristics reliability analysis considers not only the
occurrence of faults but also the repair processes that aim to restore the system to an
operational state. By incorporating maintenance features into the reliability
modeling, the system's availability and performance under repair actions can be
evaluated, providing insights into the system's overall reliability characteristics.
Evaluating the trouble-free single-unit contingency arrangement, the way it works is
explained in (16), can be observed, when both units split down, the system
collapses. Assume damaged components are fixed; the system becomes functional
once again. After then, state 2 (containing two failed units) won't be able to absorb
more. Knowing that in the event that two of them fail the steady state equations
provide the long-term likelihood mn (n = 0, 1, 2) ensuring that n fall items exist. At
that point of detection. The two units undergo replacement in tandem, and the rate
of μ causes the repair times expand exponentially. [18]

(λ1 + λ 2)m0 = μm1

(λ1 + μ)m0 = (λ1 + λ 2)m0 +2μm2

2μm2 = λ1m1
Solving these equations using the extra condition as guidance ⅀mn = 1
we get 0
2
m0 = 2μ /J

m1 = 2μ (λ1 + λ 2)/J

m2 = λ1(λ1 + λ 2)/J (21)

Where
J = 2μ2 + (2μ + λ1)(λ1 + λ 2

14
Accessibility of the framework

A = m0 + m1 = 2μ (μ + λ1 + λ 2)/J (22)

The analysis of maintained systems and the analysis of queued systems are quite
similar, as was shown above. Failures arise from the client's arrival, and service
times represent the amount of time needed for repairs. The literature has a large
number of publications that make use of this commonality. Systems with repair are
important in reliability analysis as they allow for the consideration of maintenance
activities aimed at restoring the system's functionality after a failure. By
incorporating repair processes into reliability modeling, the system's availability and
performance under maintenance actions can be evaluated, providing insights into
the system's overall reliability characteristics ([1]). This is crucial for understanding
the system's behavior over time, assessing the impact of maintenance on system
reliability, and making informed decisions regarding maintenance strategies to
ensure system uptime and performance.
Additionally, systems with repair enable the analysis of complex system
configurations where components can be repaired or replaced, leading to improved
system reliability and availability. By modeling repair processes within the
reliability framework, organizations can optimize maintenance schedules, minimize
downtime, and enhance the overall performance of their systems
In several of these works, non-exponential versions of broken parts or turnaround
times are being factored into effect.

2.4 NMR Systems with Voting

NMR (N-modular redundancy) systems with voting are fault-tolerant systems that
utilize redundancy to ensure system reliability. In these systems, multiple parallel
components, known as modules, perform the same function, and a voter mechanism
is used to compare their outputs and determine the correct result. The voter ensures
that the required numbers of modules are functioning properly to provide a reliable
output.
In systems with voting, such as Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) systems with
majority voters, play a crucial role in enhancing system reliability by ensuring the
required number of components are functioning properly. These systems use voters
to match signals from parallel components, thereby detecting and correcting errors
to maintain system integrity.
Voting mechanisms in NMR systems help in fault detection and tolerance, as well
as in achieving system reliability through redundancy and error correction. By
utilizing majority voting or other voting schemes, NMR systems with voting can
effectively identify and isolate faulty components, allowing the system to continue
functioning even in the presence of failures. This redundancy and fault tolerance
provided by NMR systems with voting are essential for critical applications where
system reliability is paramount.
Furthermore, the analysis and optimization of NMR systems with voting, including
the selection of appropriate voter configurations and voting algorithms, are
important considerations in designing reliable and fault-tolerant computer systems.
Understanding the behavior and performance of NMR systems with voting can lead

15
to improved system reliability, availability, and resilience in the face of component
failures or errors.
In conclusion, NMR systems with voting are significant in ensuring system
reliability and fault tolerance, making them essential components in the design of
dependable computer systems for critical applications.
For example, in a triple modular redundant (TMR) system with a majority vote,
three parallel components operate simultaneously. The failure rate and repair rate of
these components are considered, along with the failure rate of the voter when all
components are working and when one has failed. The system state is defined by a
vector indicating the number of failed components and the state of the voter.
The probabilities of different system states, such as the number of failed
components and the voter state, are calculated to assess the system's reliability and
availability. NMR systems with voting mechanisms are commonly used in fault-
tolerant computer systems to enhance reliability and ensure continuous operation
"Voters" In the previously mentioned NMR systems, data coming from the
simultaneous parts are juxtaposed to ensure that every one of them are operating.
Consider on a majority vote triple multilateral redundancy (TMR) system. The
rejection rate is always elevated of λ 1 as well as maintenance frequency of μ for the
three parallel components.
Let λ 2 be the voter failure rate λ 3 in the case that all three components are
operational and â, in the event that three of them have tails. Now, an array (n, m)
indicating the vote's circumstances and the quantity of parts that failed. (0 for a
working electorate and 1, or a failed electorate) must be utilized to define the status
space.

The likelihoods Qnm(n=0,1,2;m=0,1) fulfill the formulas that

Q00ˈ(z) = -(3λ1 + λ2)Q00(z) + μ1Q10(z)

Q10ˈ(z) = -(2λ1 + λ3 + μ1)Q10(z) +3λ1 Q00(z)

Q20ˈ(z) = 2λ 1 Q10(z)

Q11ˈ(z) = λ 3 Q10(z) (23)

Qnm(0) only equals 1 with the starting condition either 0 or if n = 0 and m = 0. As

stated earlier, the parallel components' efficacy determines the voter's effectiveness.
This dependence forces us to employ a broader spatial state. If both of the regions
and the quartet of concurrent elements are present, voter independence allows their
study to be divided into two separate systems. Expanding the state space is
necessary to give information on every element in a larger network with
interconnected subsystems.
As such, one must also deal with the issue of an increasing state space when
applying a Markov process model on a big network. Using a decomposition-
aggregation technique, which looks at subsystems first and then aggregates the
results to offer the consortium's broad view, is one way to get around this problem.
The following section goes over it. We showcase three durability forecasting
techniques for reliable machines to wrap off this section.

16
3. Decomposable Stochastic Models
A decomposable stochastic model is a modeling approach that involves breaking
down complex systems into sub-networks that can be analyzed independently and
then aggregating the results to obtain the overall system reliability. This technique
allows for the decomposition of a system into manageable subsystems, which can
be analyzed separately, and then combining the results to assess the reliability of the
entire system. The decomposable model is particularly useful for analyzing large
networks with dependent subsystems, providing a structured method for reliability
analysis in complex systems. Queuing networks have been successfully analyzed
using the decomposition-aggregation solution approach. The strategy's principal
premise is to divide the network into more manageable, smaller sub-networks and
then combine the outcomes into a bigger network of smaller networks. The results
obtained can only be approximated if the sub-networks are not independent or, to
use the terminology of a Markov process, generate discontinuous sets of states. This
is because interactions between the states in separate sub-networks must be avoided
for collecting the data. On the reverse hand, when there are little interdependencies
among the networks of sub networks the method has demonstrated value in queuing
networks. A simplified reliability analysis that might be utilized to demonstrate the
advantage of the case III method against stability modeling is used as an instance of
this technique hereunder computer networks.
To compute the coverage likelihood, take account of the earlier scenario. A five-
state model— statuses categorized as active (A), benign (B), error-prone (E),
detectable (D), and fail (F)—was taken into consideration in those circumstances.
At the moment, we had only thought regarding a single package. Let's imagine there
are two components, and at least one of them must be in working order for the
system to succeed. This is because interactions between the states in separate sub-
networks must be avoided for collecting the data While there are two units, there are
two types of failures that can happen: one uncovered failure brought on by an
undetected defect, and another uncovered failure brought on by the absence of
operational squads while the covered faults are present. Thus, the different states of
the model consist of: A number between 0 and lA denotes the operation of both
units; a number between lB and lD denotes the benign condition of the unit; and a
number between lE and lF denotes the failure state resulting from one or more
uncovered failures. [1,11,19]

IA
Q
Q
r

1F 2F

Figure 1 A two-component system's eight-state Markov model

17
Unit 2F is the break state that results from the lack of working units, while Unit 2G
is the fail condition that emerges from both units' undetected failure. A model of
Markov chains for clear statements of chance that is akin to the one below whose
movements are governed by (18) Qn(z) (n —— 0, lA, 1E, 1D, I F, 2F, and 2G) can
be constructed with the notion that the transition rates are fixed. However, the
benign state lB is left out for simplicity's sake. By investigating a 5-state
methodology as a successor to the first 8-state procedure and unifying states lA, 1B,
IE, and lD into a single state, let's call I G, you can approach what was previously
indicated system. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate this.
Decomposable stochastic models are a type of modeling technique used in
reliability analysis for computer systems. These models allow for the decomposition
of complex systems into subsystems, which can be analyzed independently and then
aggregated to obtain the overall system reliability. The decomposition-aggregation
approach enables the use of appropriate solution techniques for sub-networks,
providing a framework for analyzing the reliability and performance of computer
systems.
Using a decomposition-aggregation solution technique, which divides complicated
systems into smaller networks that can be studied separately and then aggregates the
findings to determine the overall system reliability, is a crucial component of
decomposable stochastic models. This method makes it possible to analyze big
networks with interdependent subsystems by breaking the subsystems down into
their individual analyses and then integrating the findings to determine the overall
reliability of the network. The decomposition-aggregation method has been
successfully used to analyze queuing networks and is useful in managing
complicated systems.
In the context of reliability modeling, decomposable stochastic models are utilized
to represent the stochastic behavior of subsystems and their interactions within the
larger system. This approach allows for the consideration of fault occurrence, fault
handling behavior, and system repair processes, providing a comprehensive
framework for reliability analysis.
The use of decomposable stochastic models, such as the Hybrid Automated
Reliability Predictor (HARP) model, combines analytical and simulation models
using subsystems to overcome limitations posed by ultrahigh reliability predictor
models. These models often employ differential equations, coverage distributions,
Petri nets, and dataflow graph models to analyze the reliability and performance of
computer systems.
Overall, decomposable stochastic models offer a powerful and flexible approach to
reliability modeling, allowing for the analysis of complex systems through
subsystems and the incorporation of various stochastic processes to assess system
reliability.
A point of decomposable stochastic models is the utilization of a decomposition-
aggregation solution technique, which involves breaking down complex systems
into sub-networks that can be analyzed independently and then aggregating the
results to obtain the overall system reliability. This approach allows for the analysis
of large networks with dependent subsystems by first analyzing the subsystems
separately and then combining the results to assess the entire network's reliability.
The decomposition-aggregation method is effective in handling complex systems
and has been successfully applied in the analysis of queuing networks
Observe the fact that the module subject to Equation (18) is the same as the fault
detection system inside the square box in the first figure If the framework depicted

18
in Figure 2 is to mimic the system constituted in Figure 1, then the rates of
transition from I G to 2G and 2F in Figure 2 should match those in Figure 1. The
use of decomposable stochastic models, such as the Hybrid Automated Reliability
Predictor (HARP) model, combines analytical and simulation models using
subsystems to overcome limitations posed by ultrahigh reliability predictor models.
These models often employ differential equations, coverage distributions, Petri nets,
and dataflow graph models to analyze the reliability and performance of computer
systems It appears that these do not have to be constants in order for the modified
system to be a time-homogeneous Markov process. They are easily distinguishable
from one another. However, as in the fault detection model, this could be roughly
finished by investigating part lG independently and determining the rate at which
the subsystem moves from part IG to state IF, in order for the mean occupancy
duration of the system in IG to correlate with the sum of its imply time at rest in
states lA, lB, 1D, and 1E. We'll ignore state l B and set (α = β = 0) to keep things
effortless. It's obvious the average time spent in presence in state n can be
determined by
͚
lim ꭍ exp(-ꝋz)mn(z)dz
ꝋ→0 0

1G 2G
1G

1F 2F

Figure2. The system illustrated in Figure 1 has an A5-state lumped Markov

model.

As in 1A, 1D, and 1E, the aggregate mean residency duration is determined as

ɳ = [λ(γ + λ + Ƿ + δ ) + (δ + qǷ)]/[λ(γ + λ)(δ + Ƿ + λ)] (24)

Assume that the pace at which l G and 1F transition is a constant, a. Next, the
process's average length of stay in the state lG, represented by r, is calculated as

r = 1 /(α + λ) (25)

Comparing equations (24, 25)

α = Ƿγ{λǷ / [λ(γ + λ + Ƿ + δ) + γ(δ + qǷ)]} (26)

Now, the entire system may be analyzed as a simple time-homogeneous Markov

chain process using α standing as the unchanging change phase over 1G and IF.

19
As an alternative, it is possible to establish a time-dependent transition rate α'(z)
between 1G and 1F and calculate α'(z) using the relation

[Q1A(z) + Q1B(z) + Q1D(z) + Q1E(z)]α’(z) = ǷγQ1E(z) (27)

This leads inexorably to an inconsistent Markov process, and its study is very
complicated and necessitates a combination of explicit answers for the likelihood in
(27), in which case a different set of calculations to explicitly learn them needs to be
used and the calculated figure is not needed.
The ability to apply suitable solutions and sub-network techniques is one of the
benefits of the decomposition-aggregation strategy. The Hyperbolic Computerized
Quality Forecaster or The HARP model is a model including components for both
evaluation and exercise. The aforementioned hybrid model partially addresses the
main shortcomings that plague ultrahigh fidelity forecast models, such CARE III (as
well as ARIES, SURF, and CAST described in the section above). Dream with a
computer system that can endure errors. Like the one previously mentioned, which
is split into sub components for fault-occurrence and fault-handling, as an example
of this technique. The observation that a system's fault-occurrence behavior consists
of comparatively uncommon events, while its fault-handling behavior consists of
extremely frequent occurrences, lends credence to this breakdown. Using
differential equation systems, the fault-occurrence model captures the core Markov
process, which could not be uniform in consistency. These formulas include
protection patterns that show how immune the framework is to flaws.
Let Qw(z) stand for the likelihood that the number of covered defects will be in an
operable state at time z. λ j ,j+1(rate of fault occurrence when the system is in state j)
should be defined as the amount governs the transformation from state j to state j +
z
1. Let qj(x) show the likelihood distribution of the time needed to locate the error.
As of now, we

Qj + 1(z) = ꭍQw (z-x)λ w,w+1Qj(x)exp(-λ j+1 ,j+2 x)dx (28)

0

With a simple fault administration mode, equation (19) yields the LT of qj(x). An
Extended Stochastic Petri Net (ESPN) modeling framework is used in more
complex scenarios. The next part provides a description of petri net models.
Calculated integration can be used to assess equation (25).
To calculate the system's reliability R(z), Pr(z) is the likelihood that, at time z,
exactly w faults were present, most of them have been addressed or the final issue is
being attended to, and the system has not malfunctioned. We acquire by means of
Qr(z).
z
Pr+1(z) = ꭍQr(x)λ j , j+1 pf(x)exp(-λ j+1 , j+2x)dx (29)
0

The possibility that a single flaw won't cause a system failure in time x is indicated
by pf(x), which is the counterpart ofthe malfunctioning mode of the whole thing.
Now that you've noted the system's dependability.

R (z) = ⅀ Pw(z) (30)

jɛN

20
where the operational state set N is shown. The value of pf(x) can also be obtained
using the ESPN model.

3.1. Petri Net Models

The Petri net model is a modeling technique used for reliability and performance
analysis of computer systems. It is a type of dataflow graph model that allows for
the representation of system behavior through the use of nodes and directed arcs.
Petri nets are utilized in the Hybrid Automated Reliability Predictor (HARP) model
to analyze fault occurrence and fault handling behavior within computer systems.
Systems with concurrent, non-synchronous, or indeterminate behavior have been
described using Petri nets. A Duality directed graph, also known as a Petri net, is
composed of two types of nodes: a set of transitions T (represented by bars) and a
collection of locations P (represented by circles); edges E connect the changes and
locations. Switches can be made enabled by adding tokens to locations; a change is
deemed enabled when a token appears in each of its input locations. Each
submission site uses a single coin, and every output site yields one token per
transaction location when the transition is activated. A Petri net's state (or marking)
can be determined by tokens positioned at specific intervals, and state changes can
be detected by transitions.
The fundamental Petri net model that was previously covered has a number of
extensions. The likelihood curve (which adds non-determinism when allowing), the
inhibitor curve, the OR logic, and the counter arc (which only permits a transition
when the input arc contains more than k tokens) are a few variations.
A key point of Petri Net Models is their ability to represent systems exhibiting
concurrent, asynchronous, or nondeterministic behavior through a bipartite directed
graph structure consisting of places and transitions connected by edges. This
structure enables the modeling of system states and transitions between states,
making Petri nets a powerful tool for analyzing system behavior and reliability
The core Petri net model that was previously covered has undergone a few changes.
The counter curve (transition enabled only when the input arc includes at least k
entries) and the probability arc (to provide non-determinism in engaging
transitions), the OR logic, and the inhibitor arc are other examples. If tokens are not
present in every input location, a transition can nevertheless be allowed. ESPN
employs the probability, counter-arc, and inhibitor models.
Petri net models are important in reliability analysis and system modeling due to
their ability to represent systems exhibiting concurrent, asynchronous, or
nondeterministic behavior. Petri nets provide a formal and graphical framework for
modeling complex systems, allowing for the representation of system components,
interactions, and state changes.
One key advantage of Petri nets is their bipartite directed graph structure, which
consists of places and transitions connected by edges. This structure enables the
modeling of system states (markings) and transitions between states, making it a
powerful tool for analyzing system behavior and reliability.
Additionally, Petri nets support the modeling of various system behaviors, such as
OR-logic, inhibitor-arcs, probability-arcs, and counter-arcs, allowing for the
introduction of non-determinism and timing information in system models. These
extensions enhance the flexibility and applicability of Petri nets in reliability and
performance analysis of computer systems.
Several extensions have been proposed to the basic Petri net model described

21
above. They include the OR-logic (not all input places need contain tokens to
enable a transition), inhibitor-arc (transition is enabled only when the input place
does not contain a token), probability-arc (to introduce non-determinism in enabling
transitions) and counter-arc (transition enabled only when the input arc contains at
least k tokens). ESPN models include inhibitor, probability, and counter arcs.
Timing information can also be associated with Petri nets to facilitate reliability and
performance analysis of computer systems using these models. Associate a non-
negative constant b with each place having the semantics that an arriving token is
“unavailable” until it has been at the place for a time interval of length b. Time can
be associated also with transitions. In timed transition Petri nets a non-negative
constant is associated with Semi-Markov or time-homogeneous approaches can be
used to analyze Petri net models thanks to Molloy's discovery that the marks a
Markov process and a Petri net are compatible. When should the firing era start—
when a transition is initiated or the first coin arrives is an issue for both stochastic
Petri nets and timed transitions. The fundamental Petri net model that was
previously covered has a number of extensions. The likelihood curve (which adds
non-determinism when allowing), the inhibitor curve, the OR logic, and the counter
arc (which only permits a transition when the input arc contains more than k tokens)
are a few variations It's crucial to take into account the likelihood that one period
may end while another is still in progress. Resolving hiring-related disputes comes
second. Likelihood is frequently allocated across the stenciled area for models
between the current and the next labeling that depend on a fixed firing time. Given
the ejection rate, (which is determined by random discharge timings), stochastic
Petri net models frequently anticipate an upcoming marking from the present one.
There is an obstacle if some shifts are allowed to have no launching time. They are
more likely to fire against one when such transitions are approved. Increasing fire
rates throughout the changeover is the solution. Likelihood as determined at regular
intervals in Petri nets. Similar to ESPN, this is accomplished by including inhibitor,
probability, and counter curve. [22]

3.2. Dataflow Graph Models

The Petri net model is a modeling technique used for reliability and performance
analysis of computer systems. It is a type of dataflow graph model that allows for
the representation of system behavior through the use of nodes and directed arcs.
Petri nets are utilized in the Hybrid Automated Reliability Predictor (HARP) model
to analyze fault occurrence and fault handling behavior within computer systems.
Computer programmers and language designers have been actively examining the
dataflow theory of computing in recent years. For computer system settings,
dataflow graph models have shown to be excellent tools. Alternatively, the dataflow
paradigm can be used to illustrate the unavoidable, delayed, or concurrent operation
of machines. Data flowing graphs' tiny footprint, universal guidance, and clarity are
their primary benefits over alternative models.
Communication channels are made possible by the edges connecting the nodes.
Actors are viewed as functions that are carried out (as opposed to modifications in
Petri nets), while ties are viewed as fixed token holders. It is feasible to assess the
reliability of a dataflow graph model without considering the types of data tokens or
the importance of the operator operations. Performers can act out a scene by using
tokens and links as triggers. Certain varieties of dataflow graphs are referred to as
continuous dataflow graphs.
Dataflow graphs are bipartite directed graphs where actors represent functions

22
performed and links act as channels of communication. Computer programmers and
language designers have been actively examining the dataflow theory of computing
in recent years. For computer system settings, dataflow graph models have shown to
be excellent tools. The presence of tokens at links triggers actors to perform, and
these graphs can be considered as uninterrupted dataflow graphs, where the specific
functions and data types are not relevant. Dataflow graphs offer the advantage of
compactness and general amenability to direct interpretation, making them suitable
for representing concurrent, asynchronous, or nondeterministic behavior in
computer systems
Furthermore, links and actors are the two types of nodes found in bipartite directed
graphs, also known as dataflow graphs.
The edges that join the nodes create paths for communication. Actors are thought of
as functions that are performed (as opposed to changes in Petri nets), while ties are
regarded as token holders in place. It is possible to examine a dataflow graph
model's dependability without taking into account the kinds of data tokens or the
significance of the actions taken by operators. Tokens and links can be used as
triggers by performers to act out a situation. We refer to some types of dataflow
graphs as continuous dataflow graphs. By mapping out the data flow, the graph can
help in understanding the system's operation, identifying potential bottlenecks, and
optimizing data processing workflows. Dataflow graphs are valuable tools for
system analysis, design, and optimization, providing insights into the data handling
mechanisms and communication patterns within a computer system In the
subsequent phase, the sub-graphs' reliabilities are accurately integrated by utilizing
the chart's hierarchical composition. Computer programmers and language
designers have been actively examining the dataflow theory of computing in recent
years. For computer system settings, dataflow graph models have shown to be
excellent tools. Alternatively, the dataflow paradigm can be used to illustrate the
unavoidable, delayed, or concurrent operation of machines. Data flowing graphs'
tiny footprint, universal guidance, and clarity are their primary benefits over
alternative models to put it simply, fresh coins are created on the resulting
hyperlinks and coins are retrieved from the data links when an actor fires. Only
when every input link on an actor has is the role eligible for execution if it has a
token and each output connection has no extra tokens.
Stated differently, new tokens are created on the output set and existing tokens on
the input set are exhausted. By expanding the sequencing mode, actors can now be
run when only a subset of output links known as the output firing semantic set, F2
—contain tokens and subset of input links known as the input striking conceptual
set, F1) are empty. Non-determination may arise because shooting lexical sets can
vary depending on how an actor performs in different situations.
One can illustrate the nondeterministic nature of implementation by providing
estimations for the input and output shooting linguistic sets. [21]

Considering the firing circumstances, five different types of operators can be

distinguished.

(1) Conjunctive operator: For the character to become active, coins must be present
in each input connection.

(2) Disjunctive operator: The participant cannot be terminated unless element is

found on one of the input links.

23
(3) Collective operator: In order for the participant to be activated, coins need to be
present in at least one of the input connections. This paper does not take
collective participants into consideration.

(4) Selective operator: Only one of the output connections gets an identification
code performer flame.

(5) Distributive operator: When the trigger flames, coins get transmitted to each
downstream link.

Figure 3 provides a graphic depiction of the various actor classes. The path that
connects actor ai to actor aj (which does not include actor aj) is represented as Rij,
Cj indicates the dependability of connection j, or the communication channel, and
Rat provides the actor's dependability.
Since dataflow graphs are hierarchical networks, there are two methods to assess the
reliability of the data flow graph. First, the reliability of the subsections is
determined. In the subsequent phase, the sub-graphs' reliabilities are accurately
integrated by utilizing the chart's hierarchical composition. HARP and this
deconstruction and aggregation process are comparable.
Conversely, dataflow graph models offer structural as well as behavioral dissection.
Functional interpretation of dataflow graph models is an additional option.
Petri nets, on the other hand, are limited to continuous use.
Since hierarchical networks, dataflow graphs can be used to evaluate the
dependability in two ways. As hierarchical networks, data flow graphs can be
reliably evaluated using one of two techniques. First, the subheadings' dependability
is assessed. The next step uses the hierarchical composition of the chart to precisely
integrate the reliabilities of the sub-graphs. The data flow graph can be compared
between HARP and this process of deconstruction and aggregation. First, the
subheadings' dependability is assessed. The next step uses the hierarchical
composition of the chart to precisely integrate the reliabilities of the sub-graphs.
This process of deconstruction and aggregation is similar to HARP.
The equations Figure 3 should be utilized to take look at all sorts of dataflow
operators. When integrating portions reliabilities. This paper does not take
collective actors into consideration. The following details set dataflow graph
pathways apart from parallel paths and dependability network series. (A)
Participants that are conjunctional and distribute point in separate directions, both of
which is required for proper operation. When the paths are independent of one
other, the dependability of the parallel path graph is calculated as the sum of the
accuracy of the individual pathways. (a) Selective and disjunctive agents produce
multiple pathways, but only one is required. By combining the likelihoods of the
various paths and applying weights based on path likelihood, the dependability of
the graph featuring these routes is determined. (c) When the pathways are not
standalone, a reliant structure specifies the manner in which the dependability's of
several participants (or portions) are combined to illustrate the hierarchy's
sturdiness.
To assess a dataflow graph's dependability, take the next few steps.

(1) List the paragraphs' subheadings.

24
(2) Use the recursive version of this approach or alternative techniques.
(3) Create a simplified graph by replacing sub graphs with single actors.

(4) Identify unique paths.

(5) Utilizing actor types, integrate performer (sub graph) reliabilities to determine
each path's dependability.

Combine the path reliabilities to get the graph's overall faithfulness.

Employed Petri nets both the math and logic functions in a single accumulator to
replicate the logic of control flow during the operation of a command. The dataflow
equivalent of a Petri net is shown in Figure 4.[19]
Overall, Figure 3's dataflow graph offers a visual representation of the data flow
dynamics in a simple computer system, aiding in the comprehension of how data is
processed and exchanged within the system.

a1 a2 a3

l1 l2 - - - lk
Rjw= Rjdwfor j=1,2….k
aw Conjunctive

a1 a2 ak

l1 l2 ----l
3
Rjw= QjwRjdwfor j=1,2….k
Qj1 Qj2 Qjk
Disjunctive
aw

aj selective Rjw= QjwRjdwfor w=1,2….k

l1 l2 - - - lk
Qj1 Qj2 Qjk
a1 a2 ak

Rjw= Rjdwfor j=1,2….k

Distributive
l1 l2 - - - lk

a1 a2 ak

Figure 3 Three ways to express dataflow participants' reliability.

The dataflow graph in Figure 3 likely visualizes the paths and transformations that
data undergoes within the depicted computer system. By mapping out the data flow,
the graph can help in understanding the system's operation, identifying potential

25
 bottlenecks, and optimizing data processing workflows. Dataflow graphs are
valuable tools for system analysis, design, and optimization, providing insights into
the data handling mechanisms and communication patterns within a computer
system

In order to make interpretation easier, the actors are purposefully given names by
the occurrences.

In figure 4, the three unique pathways Q1, Q2, and Q3 are shown

q1
Q1
q2
a 1 l1 a2 l2 a3 l3 a4 l4 Q2
q3
Q3

l8a15l21
Q1 =l4a5 q4 l15a13l19 a28l24

l7a13l10 a17l23
q5 l16a14l20a16l22

l10a11l17a15l21
Q 2 = l 5 a6 a18l24

l9a14l20a16l22a17l

l11a14l20a16l22a17l23
Q 3 = l 6 a7 a18l24

l12a9l14a12l18a15l21

The frequency of Conditional is shown by the probabilityq 1 ,q2 and q3. In a typical
program, the store and arithmetic instructions correspond to the q 4 and q5
probability that a condition will be met or notRemember that the output firing
semantic sets were used to determine these probabilities. Semantic set firing

26
 probabilities are significant exclusively to collective agents.

Start

a1
l1
Fetch
a2
l2
decode
a3
l3
a4 C S A

l4 l5 l6
a5 duplicate
a6 duplicate
l7 l8
duplicate
test condition a7
a8 l9 l10
l11 l12
l13 write read operand
l15 l16 a10 a11 a9
l17PC
change
l14 l14
a13 a16 a12 execut
l19 l20 e
increment PC a16 l18
l22
a17
a15
l23

l21

no operation a 18

l24
Figure 4. Dataflow diagram for a basic computing system.

Since dataflow graphs are hierarchical networks, there are two methods to assess the
reliability of the data flow graph. First, the reliability of the subsections is
determined. In the subsequent phase, the sub-graphs' reliabilities are accurately
integrated by utilizing the chart's hierarchical composition. HARP and this
deconstruction and aggregation process are comparable.
Path Ql 's trustworthiness is indicated by

27
 R(1) = C4R5C8R15C21C7R8C13R10(p4C15R13C19+q5C16R14C20R16C22)
*R17C23R18C24
In a similar way, trustworthiness R(2) and R(3)of pathwaysQ2 and Q3can be found.
Next, the system's dependability is provided by

R(T) = R1C1R2C2R3C3(q1R(1) + q2R(2))

Here, dataflow models are used to calculate a bridge network's reliability. A bridge
network is depicted in Figure 5a, and the dataflow Figure displays the network's
graph model. 5b. Two distinct actors (a5 , a6) are used to illustrate the bidirectional
character of unit E for the sake of depiction. The dataflow graph in figure 5b shows
four different pathways.[21]

Q1: l0a0l1a1l3a3l5a7l11a9l13a11l15
Q2: l0a0l1a1l3a3l6a5l9a8l12a10l14a11l15
Q3: l0a0l2a2l4a4l8a8l12a10l14a11l15
Q4: l0a0l2a2l4a4l7a6l10a7l11a9l13a11l15

The four pathways are not autonomous, though. Assumed is the following
dependence structure.
Path Q3 is utilized when every unit is operational; Q 1 is only used in the event that
unit C is inoperative functioning or when unit C is operating D is not, however;
While units A and D are not, functioning, Q4 is utilized; If units B and C don't match
functioning, Q2is utilized.
The veracity of every actor, with the exception of a 1 (unit B), a9 (unit A), a2 (unit D),
is provided for convenience. a5. a6 (unit F), a10 (unit C). are configured to 1.
Additionally, all link dependability are set to 1. One may compute the dependability
the bridge network is identifiable in the the data flow graph as

R(Bridge Network) = R(3) + R(1)[(1-RD)+RD(1-RC)]+R(2)(1RA)RD(1-

RD)+R(4)(1-RB)RD(1-RC)

=RDRC+RBRA[(1-RD)+RD(1-RC)]+RBRFRC(1-RA)RD(1RD)+RDRFRB(1-
RB)RD(1-RC)
Where path Qj dependability is denoted by R(1). Units A, B, C, D, and F have
reliabilities denoted as RB, RA, RD, RC, and RF, in that order.

28
Chapter-3

Chapter-3
RESEARCH GAP
The research gap in reliability modeling for computer systems, particularly in the
context of dataflow graphs and other techniques, lies in the need for further
refinement and enhancement of these models to improve their realism and
tractability. While there has been ongoing research and development in this area,
the incorporation of maintenance features, fault coverage, and system repair into

29
reliability analysis remains an area of continued investigation. Additionally, the use
of decomposable stochastic models and non-homogeneous Markov processes in
reliability modeling presents opportunities for further exploration and application,
indicating a potential research gap in this domain.
Furthermore, the complexity introduced by the decomposition-aggregation approach
in reliability modeling, particularly when dealing with large and intricate systems,
suggests a need for research into methods to simplify and streamline the modeling
process. That a condition will be met or notRemember that the output firing
semantic sets were used to determine these probabilities. Semantic set firing
probabilities are significant exclusively to collective agents additionally, the
challenge of achieving a deep understanding of the system's behavior and fault
characteristics for effective decomposition may indicate a research gap in the
development of tools or techniques to aid in this understanding. Overall, the
research gap in reliability modeling for computer systems appears to center around
the need for further advancements in modeling realism and tractability, as well as
the development of tools or techniques to address the complexity and system
understanding challenges posed by the decomposition-aggregation approach.
One research gap that emerges from the text is the need for more advanced and
integrated modeling approaches that can effectively capture the complex
interactions and dependencies within modern computer systems. While the text
mentions the use of different modeling techniques, there is a potential research gap
in developing hybrid models that combine the strengths of these approaches to
provide a more comprehensive understanding of system reliability. Integrating
different modeling techniques could lead to more accurate predictions of system
behavior and performance under various conditions.
Another research gap highlighted in the text is the need for improved methods for
estimating coverage probability and incorporating maintenance features in
reliability analysis. Developing more robust algorithms and techniques for
estimating coverage probability could enhance the accuracy of reliability
assessments and help in identifying critical system components that require
attention. Additionally, further research is needed to explore innovative approaches
for modeling maintenance activities and their impact on system reliability,
considering factors such as repair processes, downtime, and system availability.
Overall, the text provides a solid foundation for understanding reliability modeling
for computer systems and introduces various modeling techniques and concepts.
However, there are research gaps that warrant further investigation, such as the
development of integrated modeling approaches, advanced estimation methods, and
the scalability of existing models to address the evolving challenges in ensuring the
reliability and performance of modern computer systems. Closing these research
gaps could lead to more robust and effective reliability analysis techniques that
better meet the needs of complex computing environments.

Future Scope
The Future scope of reliability modeling for computer systems, particularly in the
context of dataflow graphs and other techniques, is promising. Ongoing research
and development efforts are focused on further refining and enhancing these models
to improve their realism and tractability. Additionally, the incorporation of
maintenance features, fault coverage, and system repair into reliability analysis is an
area of continued investigation. Furthermore, the use of decomposable stochastic
models and non-homogeneous Markov processes in reliability modeling presents

30
opportunities for further exploration and application. As such, the future of
reliability modeling for computer systems is likely to involve advancements in these
areas, leading to more comprehensive and effective models for assessing system
reliability.
The provided text highlights various aspects of reliability modeling for computer
systems, including fault coverage, systems with repair, availability, and the use of
different modeling techniques such as Petri nets, dataflow graphs, and
decomposable stochastic models. While the text offers a comprehensive overview
of these topics, it also points towards potential future research directions and areas
of exploration in the field of reliability analysis for computer systems.
One significant future scope lies in the development of advanced hybrid modeling
approaches that integrate multiple techniques to enhance the accuracy and
efficiency of reliability assessments. By combining the strengths of different
modeling methods, researchers can create more comprehensive models that capture
the complex interactions and dependencies within modern computer systems. These
hybrid models could provide a more nuanced understanding of system behavior and
performance under diverse operating conditions, leading to improved reliability
predictions and system optimization strategies.
Another promising avenue for future research is the exploration of machine learning
and artificial intelligence (AI) techniques in reliability modeling for computer
systems. Leveraging AI algorithms for data analysis, pattern recognition, and
predictive modeling could offer new insights into system reliability, fault
prediction, and maintenance optimization.
Furthermore, future research could focus on enhancing the scalability and
applicability of existing reliability models to address the evolving challenges posed
by increasingly complex and interconnected computer systems. Investigating the
adaptability of current models to large-scale networks, cloud computing
environments, and emerging technologies such as Internet of Things (IoT) devices
could provide valuable insights into the reliability implications of these advanced
systems. Researchers could also explore the integration of real-time data analytics
and dynamic modeling techniques to enable proactive fault detection, rapid
response to system failures, and continuous performance monitoring in dynamic
computing environments.
In conclusion, the future scope of reliability modeling for computer systems
presents exciting opportunities for advancing research in hybrid modeling
approaches, leveraging AI technologies, enhancing model scalability, and
integrating real-time analytics for proactive reliability management. By exploring
these avenues, researchers can contribute to the development of innovative and
effective strategies for ensuring the reliability, resilience, and optimal performance
of modern computer systems in the face of evolving technological challenges and
complexities.

31
Chapter-4

32
 Chapter-4
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this extensive overview has been to comprehensively outline
the various modeling approaches available to a reliability scientist specializing in
computer systems. It has been established that relying solely on structural models is
insufficient due to the crucial role time plays in evaluating reliability. An approach
that has proven to be particularly effective involves combining a stochastic process
model with the unique characteristics of the system's structure. Stochastic models are
highly valued for their ability to accurately represent and analyze uncertainties,
variabilities, and random factors in intricate systems, thus making them a valuable
asset in the computing sector. Their applications extend to aiding in system reliability
control and optimization in dynamic and unpredictable settings by providing a
flexible framework that enables risk assessment and facilitates performance
evaluation through simulation techniques.
The significance of stochastic models lies in their capacity to handle probabilistic
components, rendering them a superior choice in situations where portraying
uncertainty with precision is paramount. The introduction of innovative models like
CARE 111, HARP, Dataflow, among others reflects the evolution and ongoing
exploration within various sectors such as government, business, and academia
regarding these sophisticated modeling techniques. Notably, time does not function as
a continuous parameter in the demonstrated dataflow models.
Similar to the determinable state of an unbroken dataflow graph akin to Petri net
markers, an analytical approach can be adopted to subject dataflow graph models to
discrete and continuous Markov analysis methods by establishing specific Markov
processes based on the markings. The decision on the ideal approach inevitably
hinges on striking a balance between the model's ease of handling and the level of
realism it can offer, as mathematical modeling fundamentally involves simulating the
operations of a tangible system. This intricate interplay between different modeling
techniques underscores the complexity and meticulous consideration required in
selecting the most appropriate method to represent and analyze reliability in computer
systems effectively.
.

33
 Reference
1. Bhat, U.N. and Kavi, K.M. ‘Reliability models for computer systems: An overview
including dataflow graphs’, Sadhana, 11(1–2), pp. 167–186.
doi:10.1007/bf02811317.
2. Kavi, K.M. and Bhat, U.N. ‘Reliability Analysis of computer systems using
Dataflow Graph Models’, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 35(5), pp. 529–531.
doi:10.1109/tr.1986.4335538.
3. Arnold, B.C.; Villasenor, J.A. Exponential characterizations motivated by the
structure of order statistics in samples of size two.Stat. Probab. Lett. 2013, 83, 596–
601
4. Amiripour, F.; Khaledi, B.E.; Shaked, M. Stochastic orderings of convolution
residuals. Metrika2013, 76, 559–576.
5. Yang, Q.; Zhang, N.; Hong, Y. Reliability analysis of repairable systems with
dependent component failures under partially perfect repair. IEEE Trans. Reliab.
2013, 62, 490–498.
6. Wang, S.;Wu, Y.; Lu, M.; Li, H. Discrete nonhomogeneous Poisson process
software reliability growth models based on test coverage. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int.
2013, 29, 103–112.
7. Park, J.; Baik, J. Improving software reliability prediction through multi-criteria
based dynamic model selection and combination. J. Syst. Softw. 2015, 101, 236–
244.
8. Lung, C.H.; Zhang, X.; Rajeswaran, P. Improving software performance and
reliability in a distributed and concurrent environment with an architecture-based
self-adaptive framework. J. Syst. Softw. 2016, 121,311–328.
9. Yi, X.J.; Shi, J.; Dhillon, B.S.; Hou, P.; Lai, Y.H. A new reliability analysis method
for repairable systems with multifunction modes based on goal-oriented
methodology. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2017, 33, 2215–2237.
10. Rodríguez-Borbón, M.I.; Rodríguez-Medina, M.A.; Rodríguez-Picón, L.A.;
Alvarado-Iniesta, A.; Sha, N.Reliability estimation for accelerated life tests based
on a Cox proportional hazard model with error e_ect.Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2017,
33, 1407–1416.
11. Zhu, M.; Pham, H. A software reliability model incorporating martingale process
with gamma-distributed environmental factors. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 1–22
12. Jia, G.; Gardoni, P. State-Dependent stochastic models: A general stochastic
framework for modeling deteriorating engineering systems considering multiple
deterioration process and their interactions. Struct.Saf. 2018, 72, 99–110.
13. Zhu, M.; Pham, H. A two-phase software reliability modeling involving with
software fault dependency and imperfect fault removal. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct.
2018, 53, 27–42.
14. Navarro, J.; Calì, C. Inactivity times of coherent systems with dependent
components under periodical inspections. Appl. Stoch.Model. Bus. Ind. 2019, 35,
871–892.
15. Salehi, E.; Tavangar, M. Stochastic comparisons on conditional residual lifetime
and inactivity time of coherent systems with exchangeable components. Stat.
Probab. Lett. 2019, 145, 327–337.
16. Zhu, M. and Pham, H. (2019) ‘A novel system reliability modeling of hardware,
software, and interactions of hardware and software’, Mathematics, 7(11), p. 1049.
doi:10.3390/math7111049.
17. Eryilmaz, S.; Tekin, M. Reliability evaluation of a system under a mixed shock
model. J. Comput. Appl. Math.2019, 352, 255–261.

34
18. Gao, X.;Wang, R.; Gao, J.; Gao, Z.; Deng,W. A novel framework for the reliability
modelling of repairable multistate complex mechanical systems considering
propagation relationships. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2019, 35, 84–98.
19. Li, G.; Zhu, H.; He, J.;Wu, K.; Jia, Y. Application of power law model in reliability
evaluation of machine tools by considering working condition di_erence. Qual.
Reliab. Eng. Int. 2019, 35, 136–145.
20. Yadav, R.K. and Malik, S.C. (2020) ‘Stochastic analysis of a computer system with
unit wise cold standby redundancy and failure of service facility’, International
Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 5(3), pp. 529–
543. doi:10.33889/ijmems.2020.5.3.044.
21. Mishra, A., Jagannatham, A.K. and Hanzo, L. (2020) ‘Sparse bayesian learning-
aided joint sparse channel estimation and ML sequence detection in space-time
trellis coded MIMO-OFDM Systems’, IEEE Transactions on Communications,
68(2), pp. 1132–1145. doi:10.1109/tcomm.2019.2953260.
22. Kayid, M.; Alshehri, M.A. Stochastic Comparisons of Lifetimes of Used Standby
Systems. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3042.
23. Shrahili, M. and Kayid, M. (2023) ‘Stochastic orderings of the idle time of inactive
standby systems’, Mathematics, 11(20), p. 4303. doi:10.3390/math11204303.

35