Reading between the lines of failure logs: Understanding how HPC systems fail
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the component count in supercomputing installations continues to increase, system reliability is becoming one of the major issues in designing HPC systems. These issues will become more challenging in future Exascale systems, which are predicted to include millions of CPU cores. Even with relatively reliable individual components, the sheer number of components will increase failure rates to unprecedented levels. Efficiently running those systems will require a good understanding of how different factors impact system reliability. In this paper we use a decade worth of field data made available by Los Alamos National Lab to study the impact of a diverse set of factors on the reliability of HPC systems. We provide insights into the nature of correlations between failures, and investigate the impact of factors, such as the power quality, temperature, fan and chiller reliability, system usage and utilization, and external factors, such as cosmic radiation, on system reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it