Detecting silent data corruptions in the wild

March 16, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Harish Dattatraya Dixit, Laura Boyle, Gautham Vunnam, Sneha Pendharkar, Matt Beadon, Sriram Sankar arXiv ID 2203.08989 Category cs.AR: Hardware Architecture Cross-listed cs.DC, cs.SE Citations 44 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 6 months ago
Abstract
Silent Errors within hardware devices occur when an internal defect manifests in a part of the circuit which does not have check logic to detect the incorrect circuit operation. The results of such a defect can range from flipping a single bit in a single data value, up to causing the software to execute the wrong instructions. Silent data corruptions (SDC) in hardware impact computational integrity for large-scale applications. Manifestations of silent errors are accelerated by datapath variations, temperature variance, and age, among other silicon factors. These errors do not leave any record or trace in system logs. As a result, silent errors stay undetected within workloads, and their effects can propagate across several services, causing problems to appear in systems far removed from the original defect. In this paper, we describe testing strategies to detect silent data corruptions within a large scale infrastructure. Given the challenging nature of the problem, we experimented with different methods for detection and mitigation. We compare and contrast two such approaches - 1. Fleetscanner (out-of-production testing) and 2. Ripple (in-production testing).We evaluate the infrastructure tradeoffs associated with the silicon testing funnel across 3+ years of production experience.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Hardware Architecture

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted