3 ms·
Honestly I think this just rolls down from management. "Oh you can spend $x * 80 hours debugging or $x * 2 hours putting a patch to constantly restart" It's h
by nijave 5y ago
Honestly I think this just rolls down from management.
"Oh you can spend $x * 80 hours debugging or $x * 2 hours putting a patch to constantly restart"
It's hard to quantify the impact of having a house of cards system with components constantly restarting to side steps bugs until the whole thing lights on fire in a cascading failure later (oh the service scheduler was down for 30 mins and things are restarting so much a massive amount of capacity went offline during that time)
- vlovich123 5y agoThere's a cost efficiency tradeoff that's always important to keep in mind. As an example, I was working with a very experienced kernel developer on a (at the time) bleeding edge mobile phone. We were seeing random memory corruption causing kernel panics. The engineer spent weeks trying to find the root cause but eventually gave up and put in a patch. You can't lose the forest for the trees - you still have product to ship & other priorities. It's rare for any bug to be so valuable to fix that it eats up all the other oxygen in the room.