Arduino Fail-Safe Mechanism

Question

Suppose I am developing a fail-safe mechanism for Arduino (Or any other microcontroller). In other words a secondary microcontroller or a seperate board should get the responsibility when the primary controller fails.

Two possible mechanisms are as follows.

Method 1 - Client Server Mechanism

• There are 2 identical systems which are powered separately.
• The secondary system sends a request periodically and the primary system replies.
• If the primary system fails to reply (several times) the secondary system becomes in charge.

Method 2 - Heart Beat Mechanism

• There are 2 identical systems which are powered separately.
• The primary system sends a periodic heartbeat message.
• If the heart beat is there the secondary node knows that the primary node is up.
• When there is no heart beat the primary node is assumed to be dead. Secondary node gets the control.

Do you guys know any better mechanism to implement this?

Aardwolf

Answer 1

Typically in commercial embedded systems, a watchdog timer would be utilized to reset the processor in the case that it fails to respond by periodically "kicking the dog". All AVR microcontrollers (and many if not most other brands as well) have an internal watchdog timer. Though a design with an independent, external watchdog timer is typically more robust and reliable. Like this:

For systems that require an even higher degree of fault tolerance, for instance aerospace applications, triple redundant or triple modular redundant architectures are used.

In a triple redundant system, three identical processing components perform the same task at the same time. The result is then sent to a voting circuit or what John von Neumann called a "majority organ" (Section 4.2.2). The output of the voting circuit is the majority opinion of the three processing components.

This allows for one of the processing components to fail without affecting the operation of the system. However, if the voting circuit fails, then the whole system fails as well. A triple modular redundant system does away with this single point of failure by implementing three voting circuits as well.

Eventually though, the three outputs will need to be combined into one result again leading to a single point of failure. Even if that point of failure is the human looking at three gauges, each monitoring the same temperature.

What you need to determine is just how fault-tolerant you need your system to be and what kind of mean time between failures (MTBF) your system can handle. Then design your redundancy system around that.

Drawknife

Damn beautiful diagrams! What did you use? – Bloodred

@drozzy Not actually my diagrams. I copied them from a website that now seems to be a dead link. I've updated the link to the original paper which, unfortunately, does not have diagrams that are as nice. – Drawknife