Simulation environment for the choice of the decision making algorithm in multi-version real-time system

Abstract

Nowadays the most effective way to improve the reliability of software is an approach with the introduction of software redundancy -multi-version programming. The reliability of a multi-version system is determined not only by the reliability of the versions that make it up, but to a greater degree by the decision making algorithm.Objective: Our objective is evaluation and selection of the most reliable voting algorithms in multi-version environments. In order to get this objective there is a need to check all the algorithms in the execution environment, simulating characteristic of the developed system. Thus, we obtain the characteristics of the quality of the algorithm operation in precisely those conditions in which it will work in the system that is developed. Method:The article suggests weighted voting algorithms with a forgetting element, as well as modifications of existing voting algorithms. To be able to check the quality of their work, the simulation environment has been implemented that simulates the operation of the software multi-version execution environment. Results:The article substantiates the use of the most reliable decision making algorithms in the decision block of the real-time operating system. A comparative analysis of decision making algorithms for the operation of the decision making block of the multi-version real-time execution environment has been carried out. Conclusions:The software implementation of the simulation environment that implements the simulations of versions with given characteristics is considered, not only classical decision making algorithms, but also the author's modifications are investigated. The environment allows to obtain the quality characteristics of all implemented decision making algorithms with given system characteristics.The modeling results are considered, the dependence of the system reliability indicators on its input parameters is shown, a comparative analysis of various decision making algorithms based on the modeling results is made.

Methods for identification of objects of development of cross‐ platform on‐board software for communication and navigation satellites

“…The architectural basis of the cross-platform OBS of navigation communication satellites (Figure 2) is presented in [10][11][12]. The most important functional characteristics of the designed software components, as can be seen from the diagram presented in [13,14], are: used queues, ports, supported hardware and low-level inter-hardware communication protocols.…”

Analysis of the efficiency of UAV transport and technological cycle operations

“…Следует отметить достаточно большое количество исследований, проведенных в последние годы, и связанных с анализом влияния рабочих параметров БПЛА на осаждение капель и биологическую эффективность применения пестицидов [13][14][15][16]. Это важное направление исследований, которое отражает косвенное влияние этих характеристик на реализацию транспортно-технологических циклов (ТТЦ) сельскохозяйственных БПЛА [17][18][19][20][21]. Это полезная информация, которая служит основой для описания технологических операций ТТЦ, так как применение в сельскохозяйственной авиации БПЛА направлено на повышение эффективности процесса опрыскивания, включая эффект распределения брызг капель, их сноса, которые зависят от скорости и высоты полета БПЛА, а также используемого бортового оборудования [22][23][24].…”

Improving decision-making algorithms on the correctness of the states of multiversions of fault-tolerant software systems

“…The first class includes correct outputs, the second class includes incorrect outputs [1][2][3][4]. Thus, an important task is to separate or classify the outputs of multiversions, which is the subject of quite a lot of work in the field of multiversion programming for fault-tolerant software systems [5][6][7]. Traditionally, well-known voting algorithms are used, which include: voting by absolute majority, voting by consensus and voting by fuzzy consensus [6].…”