|
|
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... Would you want your PVR to reboot in the middle of recording? One of mine randomly decides that it wants to do as "disk check" during which it is capable of doing nothing else, and at least once this was in the middle of a recording. What's the difference? |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
On 28/09/2010 11:21, brightside S9 wrote:
Buy a radio controlled 13 amp plug cum socket. Though the remote control can have undocumented feature(s). In the initial BBC DTT stage 1998 - 2009?, when the Coding & mux went through the Regions we fitted a simple telephone operated switch to the Monitoring control PC. Despite some very stable software written in house (BNCS), Windows would manage to crash occasionally. Believe it or not, cutting edge technology C & M and all, if we couldn't "see" the regional installation remotely we'd dial up the switch and send the "off" code. Hang up, wait a couple of minutes, dial up again and send "on" code. Now that's a elaborate PDR (Power Down Reset) ! Richard |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
At 03:38:40 Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Richard Russell
wrote: Another possible source of instability is corrupted RAM, so it had none: the only read/write storage in the whole machine was the Z80's registers (around 48 bytes in all) 48 bytes! I can only remember 24: a - f a' - f' IX i b - c b' - c' IY r d - e d' - e' SP h - l h' - l' How do you get the other 24? -- John L |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
Some really good answers.
I would summarise it very simply: cost, and time-to-market. While ever we - the buying public - reward companies who get their widget to market first, or sell it the cheapest, we'll be stuck with crash-prone products. It is perfectly possible to make highly resilient, fault-tolerant systems which will struggle on even in the face of hardware failures or software glitches. These are usually found where the device has a lot riding on it and can't be repaired economically (e.g. a space probe); where the consequences of failure are unacceptably high (e.g. flight control systems); where the scale of the failure would be very large (e.g. telecommunication systems), and so forth. All sorts of self-testing and remote testing strategies can be implemented, as well as layered recovery strategies, and so forth. But yer average £100 domestic box just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. They are merely designed to work. In case that sounds odd (and just what you want), I mean no attention is given to handling situations where some (or any) part of the system stops working. In almost all cases we see some undefined behaviour (usually a "freeze"). Undefined, because no attention was given to it during the design phase. Not the kind of thing you want to happen with your nuclear cancer treatment machine! SteveT |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
I think you have collectively answered my question. In summary, the
reason things crash is because they are built to a price. Bill |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message .myzen.co.uk... In article de898962-6535-4431-9faa- , wrote: Everything from satellite receivers to computers seems to need unplugging from the mains so often and plugging back in. How come? Why don't they make these things so that when they're incapable of doing their job they just automatically reboot? Couldn't satellite receivers (for instance) just run some sort of self-check routine in the background and if it fails do a reboot? (and come back on the same channel of course?). It would need software to detect the problem and make the decision to do this - but it's usually software that is the cause of the problem in the first place. Catch 22. There's no substitute for a brain, and a finger on a button. Or a big hammer. Or a mechanical time-clock to interupt the supply for a few minuets at around 4am -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
"Richard Tobin" wrote in message ... In article , Ian Jackson wrote: The ZX81 was very reliable - provided you raised it a little by standing it on a book, so that the RAM pack (plugged in at the back) dangled in the air. One day, all nuclear power stations will be controlled this way. Unfortunately by then physical books will be a rare commodity. Does it work if you stand it on a Kindle instead? Will posh schoolgirls balance Kindles on their heads? Just a thought. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:30:46 +0100, Alan
wrote: I think that Boeing use three different, independently written programs for the three flight computers whereas Airbus use the same software in each. Boeing use common code and hardware in their CCS, it was one of the reasons for the 787s delay, convincing the authorities that the code was 'bug-free' Airbus have always used seperate teams programming different hardware running two different programming languages on their five flight computers (3 primary, 2 secondary) |
Why do we have to keep rebooting things?
On 28 Sep, 01:51, "
wrote: Everything from satellite receivers to computers seems to need unplugging from the mains so often and plugging back in. How come? Why don't they make these things so that when they're incapable of doing their job they just automatically reboot? Couldn't satellite receivers (for instance) just run some sort of self-check routine in the background and if it fails do a reboot? (and come back on the same channel of course?). Bill Even your own feet need rebooting from time-to-time (yerseewaddadidthere?!) Well, to philosowaffle a little bit, I think that other than the reason you have stated elsewhere, building to a price, there is another reason. People assume that anything can be designed / engineered / build to be 'perfect'. However, this is based in the general consumer's dreams. Consider the law of unintended consequences and how nature deals with it's systems. Nothing in nature is designed to run perfectly (nothing is designed, full stop), rather, actions are simply reactions to a very basic set of stimulus. Walking is simply stopping yourself falling over in quick succession, as a crude example. We, long ago, developed a method of locomotion that used 4 limbs, and the limbs and spine developed accordingly. Something, somewhere went right or wrong, and homo sapiens now walk on 2 limbs. And get bad backs. And fall over more than we really need to. As bipeds, we are simply alpha-release candidates. Also: feature bloat. I feel that I had something more to say, but really, it's a bit late for me to carry on coherently. I hope I have managed to get this far OK. Things need to be tended to for as long as they are alive / operational. That's the crux of it. Good design can reduce this burden but not remove it. Also, good design usually means eliminating superfluous features / the weak / the sick / the vulnerable, etc etc. One species - one niche. One machine - one job. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com