4 ms·
Can I point out that this explanation did not identify a root cause? How was the corrupt message originally produced? If they know how it happened, it's not re
by newton 18y ago
Can I point out that this explanation did not identify a root cause? How was the corrupt message originally produced?
If they know how it happened, it's not reflected in this article. The solution they describe addresses the detection of and recovery from future mysterious occurrences rather than identifying, understanding and eliminating whatever bug or condition caused this one.
- attack 18y agoMemory corruption.
- jordyhoyt 18y agoRight, it likely wasn't a bug if it is a single bit and this only happens once in a blue moon. A machine can only transmit perfect 1's and 0's for so long before getting one wrong.
- jrsims 18y agoBut they're adding checksums right? Anyone see any holes in that?
- jordyhoyt 18y agoDo you mean this? > we're adding checksums to proactively detect corruption of system state messages I dobut that means they're actually adding them together, they're adding checksums to the process to ensure data corruption has no effect. Or am I misunderstanding you?
- michaelneale 18y agoThey use MD5 in other areas, but not that particular message. So now they will. Do people call hashes "checksums" in a colloquial sense? no one actually uses a "check sum" literally any more do they?
- jrsims 18y agoRight, that's what I meant, 'adding checksums to the process'.