Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Günther H. Leber

dblp:34/6599 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance · 91% Embedded and real-time systems · 9%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance
dependability analysis
0.012003
Comparison of Physical and Software-Implemented Fault Injection Techniques · IEEE Trans. Computers 2003
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance
fault injection
0.012003
Comparison of Physical and Software-Implemented Fault Injection Techniques · IEEE Trans. Computers 2003
Hardware reliability and fault tolerance › fault injection
software fault injection
0.012003
Comparison of Physical and Software-Implemented Fault Injection Techniques · IEEE Trans. Computers 2003

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

fault injection campaign · 0.0error detection mechanism analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Comparison of Physical and Software-Implemented Fault Injection Techniques
abstract
This paper addresses the issue of characterizing the respective impact of fault injection techniques. Three physical techniques and one software-implemented technique that have been used to assess the fault tolerance features of the MARS fault-tolerant distributed real-time system are compared and analyzed. After a short summary of the fault tolerance features of the MARS architecture and especially of the error detection mechanisms that were used to compare the erroneous behaviors induced by the fault injection techniques considered, we describe the common distributed testbed and test scenario implemented to perform a coherent set of fault injection campaigns. The main features of the four fault injection techniques considered are then briefly described and the results obtained are finally presented and discussed. Emphasis is put on the analysis of the specific impact and merit of each injection technique.
Jean Arlat, Yves Crouzet, Peter Folkesson, Emmerich Fuchs, Günther H. Leber
IEEE Trans. Computers6