• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.127-148
• /
• 2020

The data center is a physical environment facility for accommodating computer systems and related components, and is an essential foundation technology for next-generation core industries such as big data, smart factories, wearables, and smart homes. In particular, with the growth of cloud computing, the proportional expansion of the data center infrastructure is inevitable. Monitoring the health of these data center facilities is a way to maintain and manage the system and prevent failure. If a failure occurs in some elements of the facility, it may affect not only the relevant equipment but also other connected equipment, and may cause enormous damage. In particular, IT facilities are irregular due to interdependence and it is difficult to know the cause. In the previous study predicting failure in data center, failure was predicted by looking at a single server as a single state without assuming that the devices were mixed. Therefore, in this study, data center failures were classified into failures occurring inside the server (Outage A) and failures occurring outside the server (Outage B), and focused on analyzing complex failures occurring within the server. Server external failures include power, cooling, user errors, etc. Since such failures can be prevented in the early stages of data center facility construction, various solutions are being developed. On the other hand, the cause of the failure occurring in the server is difficult to determine, and adequate prevention has not yet been achieved. In particular, this is the reason why server failures do not occur singularly, cause other server failures, or receive something that causes failures from other servers. In other words, while the existing studies assumed that it was a single server that did not affect the servers and analyzed the failure, in this study, the failure occurred on the assumption that it had an effect between servers. In order to define the complex failure situation in the data center, failure history data for each equipment existing in the data center was used. There are four major failures considered in this study: Network Node Down, Server Down, Windows Activation Services Down, and Database Management System Service Down. The failures that occur for each device are sorted in chronological order, and when a failure occurs in a specific equipment, if a failure occurs in a specific equipment within 5 minutes from the time of occurrence, it is defined that the failure occurs simultaneously. After configuring the sequence for the devices that have failed at the same time, 5 devices that frequently occur simultaneously within the configured sequence were selected, and the case where the selected devices failed at the same time was confirmed through visualization. Since the server resource information collected for failure analysis is in units of time series and has flow, we used Long Short-term Memory (LSTM), a deep learning algorithm that can predict the next state through the previous state. In addition, unlike a single server, the Hierarchical Attention Network deep learning model structure was used in consideration of the fact that the level of multiple failures for each server is different. This algorithm is a method of increasing the prediction accuracy by giving weight to the server as the impact on the failure increases. The study began with defining the type of failure and selecting the analysis target. In the first experiment, the same collected data was assumed as a single server state and a multiple server state, and compared and analyzed. The second experiment improved the prediction accuracy in the case of a complex server by optimizing each server threshold. In the first experiment, which assumed each of a single server and multiple servers, in the case of a single server, it was predicted that three of the five servers did not have a failure even though the actual failure occurred. However, assuming multiple servers, all five servers were predicted to have failed. As a result of the experiment, the hypothesis that there is an effect between servers is proven. As a result of this study, it was confirmed that the prediction performance was superior when the multiple servers were assumed than when the single server was assumed. In particular, applying the Hierarchical Attention Network algorithm, assuming that the effects of each server will be different, played a role in improving the analysis effect. In addition, by applying a different threshold for each server, the prediction accuracy could be improved. This study showed that failures that are difficult to determine the cause can be predicted through historical data, and a model that can predict failures occurring in servers in data centers is presented. It is expected that the occurrence of disability can be prevented in advance using the results of this study.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.467-505
• /
• 2014

I am working on a series of Korean linguistic studies targeting Ganchal(old typed letters in Korea) for many years and this study is for the typology of the [Safety Expression] as the part. For this purpose, [Safety Expression] were divided into a formal types and semantic types, targeting the Chinese Ganchal and Hangul Ganchal of modern Korean Language time(16th century-19th century). Formal types can be divided based on whether Normal position or not, whether Omission or not, whether the Sending letter or not, whether the relationship of the high and the low or not. Normal position form and completion were made the first type which reveal well the typicality of the [Safety Expression]. Original position while [Own Safety] omitted as the second type, while Original position while [Opposite Safety] omitted as the third type, Original position while [Safety Expression] omitted as the fourth type. Inversion type were made as the fifth type which is the most severe solecism in [Safety Expression]. The first type is refers to Original position type that [Opposite Safety] precede the [Own Safety] and the completion type that is full of semantic element. This type can be referred to most typical and normative in that it equipped all components of [Safety Expression]. A second type is that [Safety Expression] is composed of only the [Opposite Safety]. This type is inferior to the first type in terms of set pattern, it is never outdone when it comes to the appearance frequency. Because asking [Opposite Safety] faithfully, omitting [Own Safety] dose not greatly deviate politeness and easy to write Ganchal, it is utilized. The third type is the Original position type showing the configuration of the [Opposite Safety]+Own Safety], but [Opposite Safety] is omitted. The fourth type is a Original position type showing configuration of the [Opposite Safety+Own Safety], but [Safety Expression] is omitted. This type is divided into A ; [Safety Expression] is entirely omitted and B ; such as 'saving trouble', the conventional expression, replace [Safety Expression]. The fifth type is inversion type that shown to structure of the [Own Safety+Opposite Safety], unlike the Original position type. This type is the most severe solecism type and real example is very rare. It is because let leading [Own Safety] and ask later [Opposite Safety] for face save is offend against common decency. In addition, it can be divided into the direct type that [Opposite Safety] and [Own Safety] is directly connected and indirect type that separate into the [story]. The semantic types of [Safety Expression] can be classified based on whether Sending letter or not, fast or slow, whether intimate or not, and isolation or not. For Sending letter, [Safety Expression] consists [Opposite Safety(Climate+Inquiry after health+Mental state)+Own safety(status+Inquiry after health+Mental state)]. At [Opposite safety], [Climate] could be subdivided as [Season] information and [Climate(weather)] information. Also, [Mental state] is divided as receiver's [Family Safety Mental state] and [Individual Safety Mental state]. In [Own Safety], [Status] is divided as receiver's traditional situation; [Recent condition] and receiver's ongoing situation; [Present condition]. [Inquiry after health] is also subdivided as receiver's [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety], [Safety] is as [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety]. Likewise, [Inquiry after health] or [Safety] is usually used as pairs, in dimension of [Family] and [Individual]. This phenomenon seems to have occurred from a big family system, which is defined as taking care of one's parents or grand parents. As for the Written Reply, [Safety Expression] consists [Opposite Safety (Reception+Inquiry after health+Mental state)+Own safety(status+Inquiry after health+Mental state)], and only in [Opposite safety], a difference in semantic structure happens with Sending letter. In [Opposite Safety], [Reception] is divided as [Letter] which is Ganchal that is directly received and [Message], which is news that is received indirectly from people. [Safety] is as [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety], [Mental state] also as [Family Safety Mental state] and [Individual Safety Mental state].