2 ms·
It's actually a bit over the max value[1] - I agree though that I'd strongly suspect this issue is related to overflowing a millisecond counter stored in a 32-b
by munk-a 7y ago
It's actually a bit over the max value[1] - I agree though that I'd strongly suspect this issue is related to overflowing a millisecond counter stored in a 32-bit int. The numbers are way too close.
Hey, maybe <51 was just a off-by-one error... or maybe the actual advisory is to be <50 and some PM decided that number was too round or violated an SLA.
1. 4,294,967,296 or 4.29e9
- 3pt14159 7y agoBut with engineering we almost always have safety factors. I'd say it's probably a 64-bit int, but that would be way too much of a safety factor.
- pdpi 7y agoSafety factors are a thing, sure. Safety factors of 4.29e9x (which is what you get when you go from 32- to 64-bit ints) are possibly a bit excessive, and not at all worthy of an FAA airworthiness directive.
- goblin89 7y agoMy biggest surprise today is from learning that critical aircraft software is left running for days without a full restart. Somehow I assumed everything gets completely shut down every time they refuel or so.
- im_down_w_otp 7y agoGiven this appears to be used in the communications layer of the system I expect that the width is a defined segment of some part of the wire protocol.
- tekstar 7y agoThey should follow the Linux kernel and set all counters to rollover a few minutes after boot.