Follow this blog:
RSS

A crash-proof computer, really?

By | February 19, 2013, 3:45 AM PST

Anyone who’s ever used Microsoft Windows’ Millennium Edition knows all too well the trauma of computer crashes while typing up an assignment. If you’re lucky, auto-save would have salvaged most of your work. Though the situation has improved in the era of multi-core chips, by no means has computing become a crash-proof experience.

That may all change if a purported breakthrough reported by a team of scientists at the University College London holds up to scrutiny. They claim that they’ve built a self-repairing computer that actually prevents the lapses in processing from wrecking one’s workflow. While computer users can certainly appreciate a world where our trusty laptops run seamlessly, the implications are much more profound for complex systems like military drones, where ability to self-repair would prove invaluable in combat situations or for businesses that rely on critical processes being up and running.

The researchers say that their machine achieves this by modeling its functionality on the human brain, a nature-made device seemingly prone to constant errors (Where did I put my keys?). That’s because unlike a chip’s linear, sequential execution of instructions, the mind operates in a decentralized and chaotic fashion, with neurons firing and misfiring, often simultaneously and all the while forging new connections or repairing old ones. Our minds may get disoriented at times, but they won’t go all blue screen on us.

According to New Scientist, here’s how the researcher Peter Bentley designed a brain-like computer:

He and UCL’s Christos Sakellariou have created a computer in which data is married up with instructions on what to do with it. For example, it links the temperature outside with what to do if it’s too hot. It then divides the results up into pools of digital entities called “systems”.

Each system has a memory containing context-sensitive data that means it can only interact with other, similar systems. Rather than using a program counter, the systems are executed at times chosen by a pseudorandom number generator, designed to mimic nature’s randomness. The systems carry out their instructions simultaneously, with no one system taking precedence over the others, says Bentley. “The pool of systems interact in parallel, and randomly, and the result of a computation simply emerges from those interactions,” he says.

Basically by having each of these systems function separately and all at once, none run the risk of being an Achilles heel. They each carry their own memory, which keeps the entire operation from breaking down in the instance they can’t access the computer’s memory, which tends to be a key cause of crashes with multi-core systems. The computer also keeps extra copies of instructions circulated throughout to enable each to repair corrupted data on the fly.

But with any idea that promises sweeping fixes to a persistently stubborn problem, there will be those who will take it with a grain of skepticism. John C. Dvorak of PC Magazine points to the fact that other systems have promised to deliver a crash-free experience only to be victimized by real world complications such as gunk code and malfunctioning hardware.

The only technology I’ve seen that has some aspects of self-healing, or at least self-repairing, has been the hard disk systems that constantly remap the drive when bad sectors appear. This was done out of necessity since no hard disk is without flaws and became more and more important as disk capacity jumped ahead.

That said, hard disks still do fail; a hardware component can crap out and the disk is done. You cannot self-heal a faulty part.

And there are some machines that have borderline components. These components do not fail, but they sort of sputter under adverse conditions. I had a computer that worked perfectly, but when the temperature in the room rose over 80 degrees, it would constantly crash. Some component was flaking out at high temperatures. Components are always a threat to the stability of the machine. How does this “self-repairing” nonsense work under those circumstances?

And let’s not forget that there are already a ton of system checks built into Microsoft Windows. You’ve all witnessed how they work. Suddenly the machine stops working as the OS tries to reorganize something or rework some subroutine or who knows what. It could take an hour or two to finish, if you are patient enough to wait it out. Generally speaking, you hit the reset button and get back to work after a reboot.

The researchers were confident enough about their technology to demonstrate and discuss its inner workings in April at the IEEE International Conference on Evolvable Systems in Singapore. Maybe somewhere down the road, once it processes through everything thrown at it, we will feel good about easing up on the restart button.

Breakthroughs in computing:

Real fixes for real life problems:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tuan Nguyen

About Tuan Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2011 to 2013.

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan Nguyen

Contributing Editor

Tuan C. Nguyen is a freelance science journalist based in New York City. He has written for the U.S. News and World Report, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, AOL, Yahoo! News and LiveScience. Formerly, he was reporter and producer for the technology section of ABCNews.com. He holds degrees from the University of California Los Angeles and the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen does not hold any investments in the technology companies he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Mimicking God's design...again
I am looking forward to a crash free PC.
Posted by NewKreation
19th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Been to town lately?
80% of the population need a reboot, and reload.
Posted by Reality Bites
21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Bug/GIGO/Environmental
Nice move forward, but it would not cure

- Software Bugs
- Garbage In, Garbage Out
- Major Environmental issues

Nature can self heal, to a certain extent, depending on the system. Immune systems successfully fighting off infections and reconstructing a cut or broken bone, but would do nothing if a limb hacked off. And much of this is supported by modern medicine like Antibiotics.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
19th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
There is nothing crash-proof about the human brain.
The flaws in this pseudo-logic are glaringly obvious and exponentially greater than current PC architecture. If they want to make a crash proof computer, all they need to do is run UNIX
Posted by i8thecat4
19th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
UNIX Crash proof?
It may be better in this area and some others but it is far far away from crash proof or perfect in design.
Posted by pduffy211
19th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
UNIX is very stable
There are many Unix and Linux systems that have been running for years. Solid, reliable, with nary a crash. And the design is remarkably clean.

There are also huge numbers of embedded systems chugging away without a hitch.

The researchers have an interesting approach. I am cautiously pessimistic for the time being. We will see. Notice also the domain they are addressing - embedded systems, not general purpose computing.
Posted by mr_bandit
19th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
UNIX/Linux still crashes
I ran Linux for a couple of years (loved it, too), and I can tell you it wasn't crash free. It is true that the really stable distros will rarely see a crash if you only run the really stable software in a way that you are familiar with, but going beyond that does lead to crashes. It has been about a year since my last crash in Windows 7 and Linux featured very similar levels of stability. Computers are quite nice these days. The thing that helps Linux a lot is the heavily separate command line and GUI. I can't tell you how many times I had to kill Xorg, but generally the underlying OS remained stable. Of course, killing all GUI applications might as well be a crash. I still lost office docs, web browser sessions, etc.
Posted by Patrick Aupperle
19th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Nutters
Quite....


..and there are hundred's of thousands of nut-jobs, megalomaniacs, sex offenders, criminals, religious crackpots in this world with a 'good brain', before you get to the millions with psychological problems and the narrower group who are suffer from criminally diminished behavior culminating in the psychologically disturbed, and ending at the insane.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
19th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Or...
I'm of the opinion that almost all of the nutters out there are nutters because of the failure of some part of their development, some hormone that was not activated at the right time, or some other way their growth or development systems went wrong.

I know there ARE some truly evil people out there, but on the whole, I don't think most of them had to end up the way they did, given a decent birthing and upbringing.

Put in the best natural terms, I do believe the brain is far and away in better current shape than our pitiful attempts to imitate it.
Posted by Lightning Joe
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
doubtful
I am doubtful that it could work as presented. Software is only as good as the personnel that write it and we are all prone to error. This article assumes that mistakes are made in the code and the computer can 'correct' the code using code. this brings to mind two problems:

1. what if the programmer did not anticipate what the problem may be to allow code to be written to properly fix the errant code?

2. what if there is a bug in the code that fixes other code? (remember the whole premise is that there are problems with the code in the first place, otherwise there would be no need to have it repair itself.)
Posted by Cabo Wabo Addict
19th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Besides...
putting a command's data INTO the command itself will produce SUPER-bloated commands. And the necessity of moving THOSE commands to and from memory (yes I know, they IMPLY the "elimination" of memory itself, but that is nonsense -- where do you store the program?) will make computers too slow to use....
Posted by Lightning Joe
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
How about this ?
Perhaps this could be the latest version of the M5 Multitronic computer designed by Dr. Richard Daystrom. For all of you Trekers out there, it was a failure. As the story goes, He used his own brain engrams (a means by which memories are stored) to program this "computer" to run the Enterprise. Dr. Daystrom was not so stable himself as evidenced by the agressive nature that his creation attacked other ships and killing people with reckless abandon. Nice

Personally, I'd rather computers be a little dumber and less self aware. SciFi is our look to the future. Most recently NASA sent robots up to the international space station. Am I the only one that thought that it was a terrible idea ?
Posted by stratmosphere
19th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Its actually easy, Microsoft just isn't smart.
Approach the operating system like anything else you want to make resilient, modularize and make modules redundant.

IE: Boot module - Alternate boot paths if primary fails
I/O module - optimize throughput by managing multiple I/O paths
You get the idea.
Posted by Reality Bites
21st Feb
0 Votes
+ -
I agree but I have been thinking about something simillar my self
something like this:

#1. separate actual OS (kernel) from anything else
we can do this by makeing the Kernel a Hipervisor with no User access what so ever. there is absolutly no need for any User systems to have direct access to hardware and or Kernel..
#2. create a common interconnect BUS that would cary request/response packets between other modules and OS
#3. virtualize everything esle as an independant modules even hardware drivers.
isolate each and everymodule in it's own VM making it think that it actually have access to whole system, via BUS r/r interface.
#4. make UI a module as well.
#5. create an application manager(AM) (we see somthing simmilar in Linux systems) where anything user install is done via AM and the process is
a. for installing setup any application user would start AM and instruct it to install the app by telling AM where the files are and what to run for setup
AM would ask user what system requirements are needed for the app. or app developer can include a systemreq file with in the setup.
b. if any install is detected (stuborn/stupid user runs exe or other setup directly) system would go to AM and proseed as in (#a)

for each app the AM would generate a VM setup mimicing the underlying hardware. this would make every app think that it is the only one running.
any comunication between the modules would be via BUS system.

if app have issues it would only crash it's own VM, not affecting anything else.
OS can detect problematic VMs and clear them out from memory as needed.

example of this system working:

we install MSOffice (word,excel, etc.) each app when configured is setup in barebone VM (win7 XPMode like config) all thing user does with any app is via BUS request/Response .
say user starts word and excel. copy from word is (user press ctl+c when Word is active and OS keyboard modul sees the combination creates request to BUS to word VM
, Word VM monitors BUS for any requests directed to it and performs the request copying the data into system clipboard)
(user gose to excel and press ctl+p past. Excel VM monitors BUS for r/r and perform action )
the only common point here is sytem clipboard memory but since it is also virtualized it can be flashed and restarted with out affecting anything else.
if word does something crazy, the VM can be flashed and restarted.

the only thing that can affect this somputer is a major component hardware faluer. HDD/MB/RAM
Posted by vl1969
9th Apr
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!