Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Resilient algorithms data structures intro by Giuseppe F.Italiano

674 vues

Publié le

An easy to digest intro to resilient algorithms data structures intro by Giuseppe F.Italiano, Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata" (mirror)

Publié dans : Ingénierie
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Resilient algorithms data structures intro by Giuseppe F.Italiano

  1. 1. Resilient Algorithms and Data Structures Giuseppe F. Italiano Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
  2. 2. Some advertising first School on Graph Theory, Algorithms and Applications Erice (Sicily), September 25 - October 3, 2011 Please send your best students /postdocs /junior ….
  3. 3. Memory Errors Common in Practice 3
  4. 4. Outline of the Talk 1.  Motivation and Model 2.  Resilient Algorithms: •  Sorting and Searching 3.  Resilient Data Structures •  Priority Queues •  Dictionaries 4.  Conclusions and Open Problems 4
  5. 5. Memory Errors Memory error: one or multiple bits read differently from how they were last written. Many possible causes: •  electrical or magnetic interference (cosmic rays) •  hardware problems (bit permanently damaged) •  corruption in data path between memories and processing units Errors in DRAM devices concern for a long time [May & Woods 79, Ziegler et al 79, Chen & Hsiao 84, Normand 96, O’Gorman et al 96, Mukherjee et al 05, … ] 5
  6. 6. Memory Errors Soft Errors: Randomly corrupt bits, but do not leave any physical damage --- cosmic rays Hard Errors: Corrupt bits in a repeatable manner because of a physical defect (e.g., stuck bits) --- hardware problems 6
  7. 7. Error Correcting Codes (ECC) Error correcting codes (ECC) allow detection and correction of one or multiple bit errors Typical ECC is SECDED (i.e., single error correct, double error detect) Chip-Kill can correct up to 4 adjacent bits at once ECC has several overheads in terms of performance (33%), size (20%) and money (10%). ECC memory chips are mostly used in memory systems for server machines rather than for client computers 7
  8. 8. Impact of Memory Errors Consequence of a memory error is system dependent 1. Correctable errors : fixed by ECC 2. Uncorrectable errors : 2.1. Detected : Explicit failure (e.g., a machine reboot) 2.2. Undetected : 2.2.1. Induced failure (e.g., a kernel panic) 2.2.2. Unnoticed (but application corrupted, e.g., segmentation fault, file not found, file not readable, … ) 8
  9. 9. Impact of Memory Errors 9
  10. 10. How Common are Memory Errors? 10
  11. 11. How Common are Memory Errors? 11
  12. 12. How Common are Memory Errors? [Schroeder et al 2009] experiments 2.5 years (Jan 06 – Jun 08) on Google fleet (104 machines, ECC memory) Memory errors are NOT rare events! 12
  13. 13. Memory Errors Not all machines (clients) have ECC memory chips. Increased demand for larger capacities at low cost just makes the problem more serious – large clusters of inexpensive memories Need of reliable computation in the presence of memory faults 13
  14. 14. Memory Errors •  Memory errors can cause security vulnerabilities: Fault-based cryptanalysis [Boneh et al 97, Xu et al 01, Bloemer & Seifert 03] Attacking Java Virtual Machines [Govindavajhala & Appel 03] Breaking smart cards [Skorobogatov & Anderson 02, Bar-El et al 06] • Avionics and space electronic systems: Amount of cosmic rays increase with altitude (soft errors) Other scenarios in which memory errors have impact (and seem to be modeled in an adversarial setting): 14
  15. 15. Memory Errors in Space 15
  16. 16. Memory Errors in Space 16
  17. 17. Memory Errors in Space 17
  18. 18. Recap on Memory Errors 1. Memory errors are NOT rare: even a small cluster of computers with few GB per node can experience one bit error every few minutes. 18 I know my PIN number: it’s my name I can’t remember…
  19. 19. Memory Errors Mem. size Mean Time Between Failures 512 MB 2.92 hours 1 GB 1.46 hours 16 GB 5.48 minutes 64 GB 1.37 minutes 1 TB 5.13 seconds In the field study, Google researchers observed mean error rates of 2,000 – 6,000 per GB per year (25,000 – 75,000 FIT/Mbit) 19
  20. 20. Recap on Memory Errors 2. Memory errors can be harmful: uncorrectable memory errors cause some catastrophic event (reboot, kernel panic, data corruption, …) 20 I’m thinking of getting back into crime, Luigi. Legitimate business is too corrupt…
  21. 21. A small example Classical algorithms may not be correct in the presence of (even very few) memory errors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A B Out An example: merging two ordered lists Θ(n) Θ(n) Θ(n2) inversions ... 11 12 20 13 80 ... 2 3 4 9 10 80 21
  22. 22. Recap on Memory Errors 3. ECC may not be available (or may not be enough): No ECC in inexpensive memories. ECC does not guarantee complete fault coverage; expensive; system halt upon detection of uncorrectable errors; service disruption; etc… etc… 22
  23. 23. Resilient Algorithms and Data Structures Resilient Algorithms and Data Structures: Capable of tolerating memory errors on data (even throughout their execution) without sacrificing correctness, performance and storage space Make sure that the algorithms and data structures we design are capable of dealing with memory errors 23
  24. 24. Faulty- Memory Model [Finocchi, I. 04] •  Memory fault = the correct data stored in a memory location gets altered (destructive faults) •  Faults can appear at any time in any memory location simultaneously •  Assumptions: –  Only O(1) words of reliable memory (safe memory) –  Corrupted values indistinguishable from correct ones Wish to produce correct output on uncorrupted data (in an adversarial model) •  Even recursion may be problematic in this model. 24
  25. 25. Terminology δ = upper bound known on the number of memory errors (may be function of n) α = actual number of memory errors (happen during specific execution) Note: typically α ≤ δ All the algorithms / data structure described here need to know δ in advance 25
  26. 26. Other Faulty Models Design of fault-tolerant alg’s received attention for 50+ years Liar Model [Ulam 77, Renyi 76,…] Comparison questions answered by a possibly lying adversary. Can exploit query replication strategies. Fault-tolerant sorting networks [Assaf Upfal 91, Yao Yao 85,…] Comparators can be faulty. Exploit substantial data replication using fault-free data replicators. Parallel Computations [Huang et al 84, Chlebus et al 94, …] Faults on parallel/distributed architectures: PRAM or DMM simulations (rely on fault-detection mechanisms) 26
  27. 27. Other Faulty Models   Robustness in Computational Geometry [Schirra 00, …]   Faults from unreliable computation (geometric precision) rather than from memory errors   Noisy / Unreliable Computation [Bravermann Mossel 08]   Faults (with given probability) from unreliable primitives (e.g., comparisons) rather than from memory errors   Memory Checkers [Blum et al 93, Blum et al 95, …]   Programs not reliable objects: self-testing and self-correction. Essential error detection and error correction mechanisms.   ……………………………………… 27
  28. 28. Outline of the Talk 1.  Motivation and Model 2.  Resilient Algorithms: •  Sorting and Searching 3.  Resilient Data Structures •  Priority Queues •  Dictionaries 4.  Conclusions and Open Problems 28
  29. 29. Resilient Sorting We are given a set of n keys that need to be sorted Q1. Can sort efficiently correct values in presence of memory errors? Q2. How many memory errors can tolerate in the worst case if we wish to maintain optimal time and space? Value of some keys may get arbitrarily corrupted We cannot tell which is faithful and which is corrupted 29
  30. 30. Terminology •  Faithfully ordered sequence = ordered except for corrupted keys •  Resilient sorting algorithm = produces a faithfully ordered sequence (i.e., wish to sort correctly all the uncorrupted keys) •  Faithful key = never corrupted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ordered Faithfully 80 •  Faulty key = corrupted 30
  31. 31. Trivially Resilient Resilient variable: consists of (2δ+1) copies x1, x2, …, x2δ+1 of a standard variable x Value of resilient variable given by majority of its copies: •  cannot be corrupted by faults •  can be computed in linear time and constant space [Boyer Moore 91] Trivially-resilient algorithms and data structures have Θ(δ) multiplicative overheads in terms of time and space Note: Trivially-resilient does more than ECC (SECDED, Chip-Kill, ….) 31
  32. 32. Trivially Resilient Sorting Can trivially sort in O(δ n log n) time during δ memory errors Trivially Resilient Sorting O(n log n) sorting algorithm able to tolerate only O (1) memory errors 32
  33. 33. Resilient Sorting Comparison-based sorting algorithm that takes O(n log n + δ2) time to run during δ memory errors O(n log n) sorting algorithm able to tolerate up to O ((n log n)1/2) memory errors Any comparison-based resilient O(n log n) sorting algorithm can tolerate the corruption of at most O ((n log n)1/2) keys Upper Bound [Finocchi, Grandoni, I. 05]: Lower Bound [Finocchi, I. 04]: 33
  34. 34. Resilient Sorting (cont.) Randomized integer sorting algorithm that takes O(n + δ2) time to run during δ memory errors O(n) randomized integer sorting algorithm able to tolerate up to O(n1/2) memory errors Integer Sorting [Finocchi, Grandoni, I. 05]: 34
  35. 35. search(5) = false Resilient Binary Search 2 3 4 5 8 9 13 20 26 1 7 80 10 Wish to get correct answers at least on correct keys: search(s) either finds a key equal to s, or determines that no correct key is equal to s If only faulty keys are equal to s, answer uninteresting (cannot hope to get trustworthy answer) 35
  36. 36. Trivially Resilient Binary Search Can search in O(δ log n) time during δ memory errors Trivially Resilient Binary Search 36
  37. 37. Resilient Searching Randomized algorithm with O(log n + δ) expected time [Finocchi, Grandoni, I. 05] Deterministic algorithm with O(log n + δ) time [Brodal et al. 07] Upper Bounds : Lower Bounds : Ω(log n + δ) lower bound (deterministic) [Finocchi, I. 04] Ω(log n + δ) lower bound on expected time [Finocchi, Grandoni, I. 05] 37
  38. 38. Resilient Dynamic Programming Running time O(nd + δd+1) and space usage O(nd + nδ) Can tolerate up to δ = O(nd/(d+1)) memory errors [Caminiti et al. 10] d-dim. Dynamic Programming 38
  39. 39. Outline of the Talk 1.  Motivation and Model 2.  Resilient Algorithms: •  Sorting and Searching 3.  Resilient Data Structures •  Priority Queues •  Dictionaries 4.  Conclusions and Open Problems 39
  40. 40. Resilient Data Structures Algorithms affected by errors during execution Data structures affected by errors in lifetime Data structures more vulnerable to memory errors than algorithms: 40
  41. 41. Resilient Priority Queues Maintain a set of elements under insert and deletemin insert adds an element deletemin deletes and returns either the minimum uncorrupted value or a corrupted value Consistent with resilient sorting 41
  42. 42. Resilient Priority Queues Upper Bound : Both insert and deletemin can be implemented in O(log n + δ) time [Jorgensen et al. 07] (based on cache-oblivious priority queues) Lower Bound : A resilient priority queue with n > δ elements must use Ω(log n + δ) comparisons to answer an insert followed by a deletemin [Jorgensen et al. 07] 42
  43. 43. Resilient Dictionaries Maintain a set of elements under insert, delete and search insert and delete as usual, search as in resilient searching: Again, consistent with resilient sorting search(s) either finds a key equal to s, or determines that no correct key is equal to s 43
  44. 44. Resilient Dictionaries Randomized resilient dictionary implements each operation in O(log n + δ) time [Brodal et al. 07] More complicated deterministic resilient dictionary implements each operation in O(log n + δ) time [Brodal et al. 07] 44
  45. 45. Resilient Dictionaries Pointer-based data structures Faults on pointers likely to be more problematic than faults on keys Randomized resilient dictionaries of Brodal et al. built on top of traditional (non-resilient) dictionaries Our implementation built on top of AVL trees 45
  46. 46. Outline of the Talk 1.  Motivation and Model 2.  Resilient Algorithms: •  Sorting and Searching 3.  Resilient Data Structures •  Priority Queues •  Dictionaries 4.  Conclusions and Open Problems 46
  47. 47. Concluding Remarks •  Need of reliable computation in the presence of memory errors •  Investigated basic algorithms and data structures in the faulty memory model: do not wish to detect / correct errors, only produce correct output on correct data •  Tight upper and lower bounds in this model •  After first tests, resilient implementations of algorithms and data structures look promising 47
  48. 48. Future Work and Open Problems •  More (faster) implementations, engineering and experimental analysis? •  Resilient graph algorithms? •  Lower bounds for resilient integer sorting? •  Better faulty memory model? •  Resilient algorithms oblivious to δ? •  Full repertoire for resilient priority queues (delete, decreasekey, increasekey)? 48
  49. 49. Thank You! 49 My memory’s terrible these days…

×