Skip to main content

[Software metrics] Mean Time Between Failure - MTBF

By
MTBF - Meantime between failure
In today post I would like to talk about a software metric that can give us information related to the quality of our product and how stable it is – Meantime Between Failure.
This metric measure the time interval between the moment when a failure was fixed (and the system is stable) until the moment when a new failure is detected. We could say that this metric measure the time interval when the system is up and running.
Using this metric, we can obtain to important information related to our system:
  • How stable our system is
  • When the next failure will occur

I think that the second point is pretty interesting, especially when we have a system in production. Theoretically, MTBF could tell to the operational and maintenance team when next fail over will have – in this way they can be prepared for it.
MTBF can be calculated in different ways, the most simple formulate for it is the sum of all the time intervals when the system didn’t had a failure divided by the numbers of failure.

In a real product, we expect to have issues open all the time, even if we don’t like this. Because of this we need to define what kind of failures we measure (for example the severity level of them). We should measure the MTBF for critical failures (system is down, clients cannot use application anymore and so on). In a normal product, this kind of failures I would expect to be counted when we would calculate the MTBF.
I calculated the MTBF for a web application that is hosted on Windows Azure from 2011. The MTBF for this web application is around 10 months. The cause of the failures that we had until now was caused by:
  • A Windows Azure Service was down and we didn't had a fail over solution for it
  • Client infrastructure was down and we our web application depended on that service

In this post we saw a software metric that can be used with success when we need to predict when the next time when we’ll have a failure is. This metric can be calculated very easily and can help us to understand how stable our system is.

I invite you to calculate this metric for your own system and see what values you get.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

By
In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

By
In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...
Post a Comment
Read more

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

By
Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...
8 comments
Read more