IP Library Granted Patent US 8,918,673
Granted Patent B1
US 8,918,673 · App. 13/523,745 · Granted Dec 23, 2014

Systems and methods for proactively evaluating failover nodes prior to the occurrence of failover events

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 8,918,673
App. No.
13/523,745
Granted
Dec 23, 2014
Kind
B1
Abstract

A computer-implemented method for proactively evaluating failover nodes prior to the occurrence of failover events may include (1) identifying at least one primary node that services at least one application, (2) identifying at least one failover node designated to service the application if the primary node were to fail, (3) prior to detecting failure of the primary node, proactively evaluating the failover node's ability to service the application if the primary node were to fail, and then (4) in response to determining that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail, proactively performing at least one corrective action that would cause the application to be adequately serviced if the primary node were to fail. Various other methods, systems, and computer-readable media are also disclosed.

Claims (70)

1. A computer-implemented method for proactively evaluating failover nodes prior to the occurrence of failover events, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising at least one processor, the method comprising:

identifying at least one primary node that services at least one application;

identifying at least one failover node designated to service the application if the primary node were to fail;

prior to detecting failure of the primary node, proactively evaluating the failover node's ability to service the application if the primary node were to fail by:

identifying a failover policy that specifies criteria that the failover node must satisfy in order to adequately service the application;

determining, by applying the criteria of the failover policy to the failover node, that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail;

in response to determining that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail, proactively performing at least one corrective action that would cause the application to be adequately serviced if the primary node were to fail.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein identifying the failover node comprises:

retrieving a prioritization list that specifies a user-defined order for selecting failover nodes if the primary node were to fail;

identifying the failover node within the prioritization list.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein identifying the failover node comprises:

identifying a plurality of failover candidates;

automatically generating, by applying the criteria of the failover policy to the failover candidates, a prioritization list that identifies a preferred order for selecting failover nodes from the failover candidates if the primary node were to fail;

identifying the failover node within the prioritization list.

4. The method of claim 3 , further comprising, upon generating the prioritization list, automatically configuring each failover node identified in the prioritization list to service the application.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein proactively evaluating the failover node's ability to service the application comprises evaluating the failover node's ability to service the application on a periodic basis.

6. The method of claim 1 , wherein proactively evaluating the failover node's ability to service the application comprises:

registering with a monitoring framework to be notified of events that would impact the failover node's ability to service the application;

receiving notification, via the monitoring framework, of an event that would impact the failover node's ability to service the application.

7. The method of claim 1 , wherein proactively evaluating the failover node's ability to service the application comprises:

identifying at least one attribute flag associated with the failover node that identifies the failover node's ability to service the application;

determining, by evaluating the attribute flag associated with the failover node, that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail.

8. The method of claim 1 , wherein proactively performing the corrective action comprises at least one of:

generating at least one notification that indicates that the failover node is unable to adequately service the application;

automatically correcting at least one issue that is preventing the failover node from being able to adequately service the application;

preventing the failover node from servicing the application if the primary node were to fail;

prioritizing at least one other failover node that satisfies the criteria of the failover policy over the failover node.

9. The method of claim 8 , wherein prioritizing the other failover node that satisfies the criteria of the failover policy over the failover node comprises overriding a prioritization list that identifies a preferred order for selecting failover nodes if the primary node were to fail.

10. A system for proactively evaluating failover nodes prior to the occurrence of failover events, the system comprising:

an identification module programmed to:

identify at least one primary node that services at least one application;

identify at least one failover node designated to service the application if the primary node were to fail;

an evaluation module programmed to proactively evaluate, prior to detecting failure of the primary node, the failover node's ability to service the application if the primary node were to fail by:

identifying a failover policy that specifies criteria that the failover node must satisfy in order to adequately service the application;

determining, by applying the criteria of the failover policy to the failover node, that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail;

a correction module programmed to proactively perform, in response to the determination that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail, at least one corrective action that would cause the application to be adequately serviced if the primary node were to fail;

at least one processor configured to execute the identification module, the evaluation module, and the correction module.

11. The system of claim 10 , wherein the identification module identifies the failover node by:

retrieving a prioritization list that specifies a user-defined order for selecting failover nodes if the primary node were to fail;

identifying the failover node within the prioritization list.

12. The system of claim 10 , wherein the identification module identifies the failover node by:

identifying a plurality of failover candidates;

automatically generating, by applying the criteria of the failover policy to the failover candidates, a prioritization list that identifies a preferred order for selecting failover nodes from the failover candidates if the primary node were to fail;

identifying the failover node within the prioritization list.

13. The system of claim 12 , further comprising a configuration module programmed to automatically configure, upon generation of the prioritization list, each failover node identified in the prioritization list to service the application.

14. The system of claim 10 , wherein the evaluation module proactively evaluates the failover node's ability to service the application on a periodic basis.

15. The system of claim 10 , wherein the evaluation module proactively evaluates the failover node's ability to service the application by:

registering with a monitoring framework to be notified of events that would impact the failover node's ability to service the application;

receiving notification, via the monitoring framework, of an event that would impact the failover node's ability to service the application.

16. The system of claim 10 , wherein the evaluation module proactively evaluates the failover node's ability to service the application by:

identifying at least one attribute flag associated with the failover node that identifies the failover node's ability to service the application;

determining, by evaluating the attribute flag associated with the failover node, that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail.

17. The system of claim 10 , wherein the correction module proactively performs the corrective action by at least one of:

generating at least one notification that indicates that the failover node is unable to adequately service the application;

automatically correcting at least one issue that is preventing the failover node from being able to adequately service the application;

preventing the failover node from servicing the application if the primary node were to fail;

prioritizing at least one other failover node that satisfies the criteria of the failover policy over the failover node.

18. The system of claim 17 , wherein the correction module prioritizes the other failover node that satisfies the criteria of the failover policy over the failover node by overriding a prioritization list that identifies a preferred order for selecting failover nodes if the primary node were to fail.

19. A non-transitory computer-readable-storage medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to:

identify at least one primary node that services at least one application;

identify at least one failover node designated to service the application if the primary node were to fail;

prior to detecting failure of the primary node, proactively evaluate the failover node's ability to service the application if the primary node were to fail by:

identifying a failover policy that specifies criteria that the failover node must satisfy in order to adequately service the application;

determining, by applying the criteria of the failover policy to the failover node, that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail;

in response to determining that the failover node would be unable to adequately service the application if the primary node were to fail, proactively perform at least one corrective action that would cause the application to be adequately serviced if the primary node were to fail.

20. The non-transitory computer-readable-storage medium of claim 19 , wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of:

generating at least one notification that indicates that the failover node is unable to adequately service the application;

automatically correcting at least one issue that is preventing the failover node from being able to adequately service the application;

preventing the failover node from servicing the application if the primary node were to fail;

prioritizing at least one other failover node that satisfies the criteria of the failover policy over the failover node.

Assignments (16)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Dec 12, 2025
From: ARCTERA US LLC
To: CITIBANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 073951/0470 →
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT AT R/F 070530/0497 Recorded Dec 1, 2025
From: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
To: ARCTERA US LLC
Reel/Frame 073833/0730 →
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT AT R/F 069585/0150 Recorded Dec 1, 2025
From: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
To: ARCTERA US LLC
Reel/Frame 073833/0848 →
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Dec 16, 2024
From: ACQUIOM AGENCY SERVICES LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
To: VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC (F/K/A VERITAS US IP HOLDINGS LLC)
Reel/Frame 069712/0090 →
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Dec 13, 2024
From: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS NOTES COLLATERAL AGENT
To: VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Reel/Frame 069634/0584 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Dec 10, 2024
From: ARCTERA US LLC
To: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 069563/0243 →
PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Dec 10, 2024
From: ARCTERA US LLC
To: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 069585/0150 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 9, 2024
From: VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
To: ARCTERA US LLC
Reel/Frame 069548/0468 →
ASSIGNMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENT COLLATERAL Recorded Nov 25, 2024
From: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS ASSIGNOR
To: ACQUIOM AGENCY SERVICES LLC, AS ASSIGNEE
Reel/Frame 069440/0084 →
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY IN PATENTS AT R/F 037891/0726 Recorded Nov 30, 2020
From: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
To: VERITAS US IP HOLDINGS, LLC
Reel/Frame 054535/0814 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Aug 20, 2020
From: VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
To: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS NOTES COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 054370/0134 →
MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Apr 18, 2016
From: VERITAS US IP HOLDINGS LLC; VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
To: VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Reel/Frame 038455/0752 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Feb 23, 2016
From: VERITAS US IP HOLDINGS LLC
To: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 037891/0001 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Feb 23, 2016
From: VERITAS US IP HOLDINGS LLC
To: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 037891/0726 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 4, 2016
From: SYMANTEC CORPORATION
To: VERITAS US IP HOLDINGS LLC
Reel/Frame 037697/0412 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 14, 2012
From: RANGAIAH, JAGADAMBA; DOSHI, TUSHAR; VAIDYA, ANISH
To: SYMANTEC CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 028379/0598 →