SoftwareQualityManagement

Unit 3
G.RoyAntonyArnold
Asst Prof /CSE
Asst.Prof./CSE

GRAA

t t tto R
l i h which
hi h models
d l th
f t pattern
tt
IIn contrast
Rayleigh,
the d
defect
off
the entire development process, reliability growth models
are usually based on data from the formal testing phases.
Indeed it makes more sense to apply these models during
the final testing phase when development is virtually
complete,
complete especially when the testing is customer
oriented.
During such postdevelopment testing, when defects are
id tifi d and
identified
d fixed,
fi d the
th software
ft
b
becomes
more stable,
t bl
and reliability grows over time. Therefore models that
address such a process are called
.

GRAA

 They
h are classified
l ifi d into
i
two classes.
l
They
h are,
Time between Failure Model
the variable under study is the time between failures
Mean time to next failure is usually the parameter to
b estimated
be
i
d for
f the
h model.
d l

Fault Count Model

the
h variable
i bl criterion
i i
i the
is
h number
b off faults
f l or
failures (or normalized rate) in a specified time
interval.
Thenumberofremainingdefectsorfailures isthekey
parametertobeestimatedfromthisclassofmodels.
GRAA

 There are N unknown software faults

at the start of testingg
Failures occur randomly
All faults
f l contribute
ib
equally
ll to failure
f il
Fix time is negligibly
g g y small
Fix is perfect for each fault

GRAA

 JelinskiMoranda
J li ki M
d (JM)Model
(J M) M d l
Assumesrandomfailures,perfectzerotimefixes,all
f l
faultsequallybad
ll b d

Littlewood Models
LikeJMmodel,butassumesbiggerfaults
foundfirst

GoelOkumoto ImperfectDebuggingModel
LikeJ
Like JM
Mmodel,butwithbadfixespossible
model, but with bad fixes possible

GRAA

(
)
One of the earliest model. (1972)
The software products failure rate improves by the same
amount at each fix.
The hazard function at time ti, the time between the (i1)st
and ith failures, is given
Where N is the number of software defects at the beginning
of testing and is a proportionality constant.
N t
Note:
Hazard function is constant between failures but decreases in
steps of following the removal of each fault. Therefore, as each fault is
removed, the time between failures is expected to be longer.
GRAA

 SimilartoJMModel,exceptitassumesthat
y
differentfaultshavedifferentsizes,thereby
contributingunequallytofailures.(1981)
Largersizedfaultstendtobedetectedand
Larger sized faults tend to be detected and
fixedearlier.
Thisconceptmakesthemodelassumption
more realistic.
morerealistic.

GRAA

 JJMModelassumesperfectdebugging.Butthisisnot
MM d l
f t d b i B t thi i
t
possiblealways.
In the process of fixing a defect new defects may be
Intheprocessoffixingadefect,newdefectsmaybe
injected.Indeed,defectfixactivitiesareknowntobe
errorprone.
Hazardfunctionis,
Where N is the number of software defects at the
beginning of testing, is a proportionality constant, p
is the probability of imperfect debugging and is the
failure rate per fault.

GRAA

 Testing intervals are independent of each

other
Testing during intervals is reasonably
homogeneous
Number of defects detected is independent
of each other

GRAA

 G
GoelOkumoto
l Ok
t NonhomogeneousPoissonProcess
N h
P i
P
Model(NHPP)
##offailuresinatimeperiod,exponentialfailurerate(i.e.
of failures in a time period, exponential failure rate (i.e.
theexponentialmodel!)

MusaOkumoto LogarithmicPoissonExecutionTime
M d l
Model
LikeNHPP,butlaterfixeshavelesseffectonreliability

TheDelayedSandInflectionSModels
The Delayed S and Inflection S Models
DelayedS: Recognizestimebetweenfailuredetectionand
fix
InflectionS: Asfailuresaredetected,theyrevealmore
failures
GRAA

 Thismodelisconcernedwithmodellingthe
numberoffailuresobservedingiventesting
intervals.(1979)
Theyproposedthatthetimedependentfailurerate
followsanexponentialdistribution.
e ode s,
Themodelis,
[m(t )] y m (t )
e
, y = 0,1,2...
P{N(t)=y}=
y!

GRAA