IP Library Granted Patent US 12,229,037
Granted Patent B2
US 12,229,037 · App. 18/480,163 · Granted Feb 18, 2025

Methods and systems for status determination

Inventors: Chun Hsu (Issaquah, WA); Michael Horwitz (Seattle, WA); Chris Orogvany (Seattle, WA); Alfred Stappenbeck (Edmonds, WA)
Assignee: Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
G06F11/3433G06F9/5083G06F11/3055H04L67/10H04L67/1029H04L67/1034H04L69/40G06F11/076G06F2201/81G06F2201/875
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,229,037
App. No.
18/480,163
Granted
Feb 18, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Methods and systems for status determination are disclosed. A computing device may determine a status of the computing device or another computing device. One or more actions may be taken based on the status of the computing device or the another computing device.

Claims (38)

1. A method comprising:

determining, by a first network device of a plurality of network devices, an operational status of a second network device of the plurality of network devices relative to the first network device;

determining, based on the operational status and based on a failure rate of the second network device, that the second network device is to process at least one computing task; and

causing the second network device to process the at least one computing task.

2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining, based on a failure rate of the first network device and the failure rate of the second network device, a failure status of the second network device relative to the first network device, wherein determining that the second network device is to process the at least one computing task is further based on the failure status of the second network device.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device is based on at least one of a rate of failing to fulfill requests, an error rate, or a rate of failed operations.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device is based on a ratio of failed requests with respect to fulfilled requests.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device indicates an availability of the second network device when the failure rate does not satisfy a threshold.

6. The method of claim 1 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device is based on a completion of one or more computing tasks associated with the at least one computing task.

7. The method of claim 1 , wherein causing the second network device to process the at least one computing task further comprises:

determining that the operational status of the second network device is active; and

determining that the failure rate of the second network device does not satisfy a threshold.

8. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by a first network device of a plurality of network devices, cause the first network device to:

determine an operational status of a second network device of the plurality of network devices relative to the first network device;

determine, based on the operational status and based on a failure rate of the second network device, that the second network device is to process at least one computing task; and

cause the second network device to process the at least one computing task.

9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the first network device to:

determine, based on a failure rate of the first network device and the failure rate of the second network device, a failure status of the second network device relative to the first network device, wherein determining that the second network device is to process the at least one computing task is further based on the failure status of the second network device.

10. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device is based on at least one of a rate of failing to fulfill requests, an error rate, or a rate of failed operations.

11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device is based on a ratio of failed requests with respect to fulfilled requests.

12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device indicates an availability of the second network device when the failure rate does not satisfy a threshold.

13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the failure rate of the second network device is based on a completion of one or more computing tasks associated with the at least one computing task.

14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the processor-executable instructions that cause the first network device to cause the second network device to process the at least one computing task further cause the first network device to:

determine that the operational status of the second network device is active; and

determine that the failure rate of the second network device does not satisfy a threshold.

15. An apparatus, comprising:

one or more processors; and

a memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:

determine, an operational status of a network device of a plurality of network devices relative to the apparatus;

determine, based on the operational status and based on a failure rate of the network device, that the network device is to process at least one computing task; and

cause the network device to process the at least one computing task.

16. The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the apparatus to:

determine, based on a failure rate of the apparatus and the failure rate of the network device, a failure status of the network device relative to the apparatus, wherein determining that the network device is to process the at least one computing task is further based on the failure status.

17. The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the failure rate of the network device is based on at least one of a rate of failing to fulfill requests, an error rate, or a rate of failed operations.

18. The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the failure rate of the network device is based on a ratio of failed requests with respect to fulfilled requests.

19. The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the failure rate of the network device indicates an availability of the network device when the failure rate does not satisfy a threshold.

20. The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the failure rate of the network device is based on a completion of one or more computing tasks associated with the at least one computing task.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Oct 6, 2023
From: HSU, CHUN; HORWITZ, MICHAEL; OROGVANY, CHRIS; STAPPENBECK, ALFRED
To: THEPLATFORM, LLC
Reel/Frame 065151/0515 →
MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Oct 6, 2023
From: THEPLATFORM, LLC; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC
To: COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC
Reel/Frame 065151/0629 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 16775003 · Jan 28, 2020
Continuation 14546418 · Nov 18, 2014
Related Publication 20240126673A1 · Apr 18, 2024
References Cited (17)
US 5109486A · Seymour · 1992 [cited by applicant]
US 5909217A · Bereiter · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 9344493B1 · Anand · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9378068B2 · Anantharam et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9813341B1 · Tailor et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10592379B2 · Hsu et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20070025381A1 · Feng et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20140280949A1 · Anantharam · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150207754A1 · Johnson · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20150223095A1 · Centonza · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160140012A1 · Hsu et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160309345A1 · Tehrani et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
Schneidewind, System Network, 2012 (Year: 2012). [cited by examiner]
Stoica, Chord: A Scalable Peertopeer Lookup Service for Internet Applications, 2001 (Year: 2001). [cited by examiner]
Zaki, M.J. et al., “Customized Dynamic Load Balancing for a Network of Workstations,” Comp Sci Dept, Univ. Rochester, Rochester, NY (1996) (10 pages). [cited by applicant]
Willebeek-Lemair, M.H., “Strategies for Dynamic Load Balancing on Highly Parallel Computers,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 1993, vol. 4, No. 9, pp. 979-993. [cited by applicant]
Rao, A. et al., “Load Balancing in Structured P2P Systems,” 2003, 6 pages. [cited by applicant]