6 ms·
> Total output of machines: 380. > During 25 years of operation no failures of the system were noted when working in control systems. By the production volume
by Etheryte 8y ago
> Total output of machines: 380.
> During 25 years of operation no failures of the system were noted when working in control systems. By the production volume it is unrivalled among space computers.
Not only still in production, but still in production with no failures reported. This is beyond amazing. Triple redundancy and hardware majorization will surely help you greatly, but no failures across those numbers is just mind-boggling.
- programmer_dude 8y agoWhat is hardware majorization? Never heard of it.
- Etheryte 8y agoThe system is essentially three identical computers wrapped in a control system. Hardware majorization means the computers have to agree on the computed result, that is, each computes the output from the given inputs independently and the results are then compared. This mitigates errors stemming from any kind of hardware faults, except for the control system itself.
- ahoka 8y agoThis is the product of the Soviet Union, so take it with a grain of salt.
- fit2rule 8y ago"Don't let the stats sway you - think of the propaganda!"
- v_lisivka 8y ago"no failures noted" != "no failures".
- fit2rule 8y ago.. unless of course the standard application for the device is in safety-critical/life-protection systems, in which case "no failures noted" better be honest.
- theamk 8y agoWhy? They try to keep all information secret, especially the one that make USSR looks bad. For example, they denied existence of Level 6 nuclear accident for 30 years [0]. If the nuclear accident which had 10,000 people evacuated was suppressed and denied for 30 years, why would you trust them to publish any negative information about military computer? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak#Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak#Kyshtym_disaster
- fit2rule 8y agoI mean, these systems are flying on the ISS and protecting American lives. If its good enough for NASA, its good enough for me. Or are you suggesting that NASA also fell for the scam?