The conditional diagnosability of crossed cubes under the comparison model

International Journal of Computer Mathematics

Volumn 87, Issue 15, 2010, Pages 3387-3396

  Zhou, Shuming ^a  

^a FUJIAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

comparison diagnosis model; conditional diagnosability; crossed cubes

Indexed keywords

COMPARISON DIAGNOSIS MODEL; COMPARISON MODELING; COMPONENT FAILURES; CONDITIONAL DIAGNOSABILITY; CROSSED CUBES; FAULTY PROCESSORS; HIGH RELIABILITY; MULTI PROCESSOR SYSTEMS;

FAULT DETECTION; GEOMETRY;

MULTIPROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 78649805586     PISSN: 00207160     EISSN: 10290265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207160903477175     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. C.-P. Chang and C.-C. Wu, Conditional fault diameter of crossed cubes, J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 69(1) (2009), pp. 91-99.
2. K. Y. Chwa and S. L. Hakimi, On fault identification in diagnosable system, IEEE Trans. Comput. C-30 (6) (1981), pp. 414-422.
3. K. Efe, A variation on the hypercube with lower diameter, IEEE Trans. Comput. 40(11) (1991), pp. 1312-1316.
4. K. Efe, The crossed cube architecture for parallel computation, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 3(5) (1992), pp. 513-524.
5. A. H. Esfahanian, Generalized measures of fault tolerance with application to N-cube networks, IEEE Trans. Comput. 38(1989), pp. 1586-1691.
6. J. Fan, Diagnosability of crossed cubes under two strateges, Chin. J. Comput. 5(21) (1998), pp. 456-462.
7. J. Fan, Diagnosability of crossed cubes under the comparison diagnosis model, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 13(10) (2002), pp. 1099-1104.
8. J. Fan, X. Lin, and X. Jia, Node-pancyclicity and edge-pancyclicity of crossed cubes, Inf. Process. Lett. 93(3) (2005), pp. 133-138.
9. G.-H. Hsu, C.-F. Chiang, L.-M. Shih, L.-H. Hsu, and J. J. M. Tan, Conditional diagnosability of hypercubes under the comparison diagnosis model, J. Syst. Arch. 55(2) (2009), pp. 140-146.
10. W. T. Huang, Y. C. Chuang, L. H. Hsu, and J. J. M. Tan, On the fault-tolerant hamiltonicity of crossed cubes, IEICE Trans. Fundam. E85-A (6) (2002), pp. 1359-1370.
11. H.-S. Hung, J.-S. Fu, and G.-H. Chen, Fault-free Hamiltonian cycles in crossed cubes with conditional link faults, Inf. Sci. 177(24) (2007), pp. 5664-5674.
12. P. D. Kulasinghe, Connectivity of the crossed cube, Inf. Process. Lett. 61(4) (1997), pp. 221-226.
13. P.-L. Lai, J. J. M. Tan, C.-P. Chang, and L.-H. Hsu, Conditional diagnosability measure for large multiprocessor systems, IEEE Trans. Comput. 54(2005), pp. 165-175.
14. S. Latifi, Combinatorial analysis of the fault-diameter of the n-cube, IEEE Trans. Comput. 42(1) (1993), pp. 27-33.
15. C.-K. Lin, J. J. M. Tan, L.-H. Hsu, E. Cheng, and L. Lipták, Conditional diagnosability of cayley graphs generalized by transposition tree under the comparison diagnosis model, J. Interconnect. Netw. 9(1) (2008), pp. 83-97.
16. J. Maeng and M. Malek, A Comparison connection Assignment for Self-diagnosis of Multiprocessor Systems, Proceedings of 11th International Fault-Tolerant Computing, Portland, Maine, 1981, pp. 173-175.
17. M. Malek, A Comparison Connection Assignment for Diagnosis of Multiprocessor Systems, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium Computer Architecture, ACM, New York, NY, 1980, pp. 31-35.
18. F. P. Preparata, G. Metze, and R. T. Chien, On the connection assignment problem of diagnosable systems, IEEE Trans. Comput. 16(1967), pp. 848-854.
19. A. Sengupta and A. Dahbura, On self-diagnosable multiprocessor systems: Diagnosis by comparison approach, IEEE Trans. Comput. 41(11) (1992), pp. 1386-1396.
20. D. Wang, Diagnosability of enhanced hypercubes, IEEE Trans. Comput. 9(1994), pp. 1054-1061.
21. D. Wang, Diagnosability of hypercubes and enhanced hypercubes under the comparison diagnosis model, IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(12) (1999), pp. 1369-1347.
22. M.-C. Yang, T.-K. Li, J. J. M. Tan, and L.-H. Hsu, Fault-tolerant cycle-embedding of crossed cubes, Inf. Process. Lett. 88(4) (2003), pp. 49-154.
23. J. Zheng, S. Latifi, E. Regentova, K. Luo, and X.-L. Wu, Diagnosability of star graphs under the comparison diagnosis model, Inf. Process. Lett. 93(2005), pp. 29-36.