Jump to content
Posted 04 August 2012 - 07:39 AM
Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:28 AM
Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:35 AM
Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:40 AM
Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:55 AM
So how's everybody doing in that little head of yours ? ™
Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:12 AM
Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:58 PM
Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:57 PM
Even after Time Warner came out and fixed the signal level problem, after they left, I was still only getting about 0.4 Mbps upload speed per TMN tests. Then about a week later, all of a sudden, it went back up to about 0.8 Mbps where it normally is. Their speed tests showed the same 1Mbps at a real 0.4 AND at 0.8. How worthless.
The thing is, if the browser interprets the data using the wrong character set the data being sent or received becomes jumbled... resulting in more data than was actually there... because it replaces 8 bit characters with it's own representation of the characters I intended... always resulting in more data. That's the best way I can explain it.
Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:36 AM
Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:03 AM
Interesting. Glad you found it. When I look in my test results, I can see exactly when the fix went in. I was a bit puzzled when the upload speed showed low but I didn't notice any performance hit. Because of that, I didn't push it with Time Warner. Their fix of the download speed wild variation due to the signal level made the performance right again.
Software bugs are tough. Before I retired I worked at GE Aircraft Engines in Evendale OH. I was an electronic engine control circuit designer. In the 1980s we transitioned from purely analog controls to digital controls. Each engine control had two independent channels of hardware running the same OS and AS. In those days there weren't very good software design and validation tools and standards. We were always terrified of the subtle software bugs that could lock up the Software and cause an engine shutdown. Commercial airlines always have a minimum of two engines and the ability to fly with one engine out. But both engines (4 control channels) run the same software. So there was always that small probability of a bug that would take out all of the engines at the same time. Miraculously (due to a lot of SW engineers checking code) it never happened. We had a couple of control channel shutdowns due to subtle software errors or hardwarevfailures over the years, but never a common mode one that took everything down. Back then the software was a lot simpler, and the engine controls had hydro mechanical backups. These days, there are no hydromechanical backups because they are very heavy, and the software is orders of magnitude more complex. But the design and validation process tools are also orders of magnitude more sophisticated.
But every time there is a new set of requirements that result in a software change, there's always the potential for something to slip by. Thankfully, a simple core of hardware and software safety nets that were developed that could be ported to new processors, memory, and control chips, and the wheel didn't have to be reinvented. Subtle software glitches are very tough to catch.
On Sun Aug 19 2012 @ 1:10:48 pm the world was right again.
... see I sensed that you were knowledgeable. That title is well deserved and I don't just hand those out. Out of 86,000 registered members only
2324 hold that title and only 35 have a higher title. I hope you stop by from time to time and provide your insite... lots of people with connection problems and we're much smarter and can solve much more as a collection of minds.
Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:59 PM
Posted 30 August 2012 - 02:13 PM
Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:26 PM
Thanks so much. I'm both surprised and honored.
Yes, you are right, a true bug in one means that there's a bug in all. And as for it being a scary time to fly, amazingly, the reliability and safety of the aircraft is way better than in the old analog days. Mostly because the size and weight of those old systems wouldn't allow you to put redundancy everywhere you needed it. Now the probability of a catastrphic failure due to electronics or software failure is extremely low because with a redundant system, the probability is the product of the failure rates. So if one channel has a probability of catastrophic failure of 1.0 E-06 per flight hour, then the probability of having both channels go out is 1.0 E-12. These numbers are really small, but with thousands of aircraft flying all the time, they are racking up millions of hours a month, so the numbers have to be incredibly small or there'd be planes falling out of the sky regularly. The safety critical flight control systems on the planes are usually triple channel redundant. Engine systems are dual redundant because there are two engines. So as for is there too much redundancy, economics keeps it to a minimum, but as the number of aircraft flying increases, better safety numbers are always being sought.
As for the weight of that redundancy, it's all about gas mileage (making money). The aircraft design weight is set by competition amongs the plane manufacturers; each one wanting to earn more money with better mileage and lower ticket costs to steal sales away from the other guy. So in order to get the weight down with the added redundancy, smaller lighter electronics and new stronger lighter hardware in the control systems is required. It's usually more expensive. So redundancy usually only goes into the real safety critical systems. It's getting to be the same in cars.
Well enough rambling about the aircraft world. Thanks again for the promotion. I do test regularly using your tools, and check in the forums every week or two.
I had forgotten what a Greek Sophist was and had to go look it up. Hopefully I can help on another day. I'm a retired engineer so I'm always looking for interesting tech stuff.
Posted 31 August 2012 - 06:28 AM
So how's everybody doing in that little head of yours ? ™
Posted 31 August 2012 - 02:26 PM
Congrats on the promotion Pgoodwin1 !!!!!
It's not just a title, ca3le does not just toss out that one bud. Iv'e followed your thread, great intuition, questioning an anomaly is a very good trait .
Posted 31 August 2012 - 05:57 PM
People like him keep me on my toes... but as I said before, I can debug for days on end and it's never as good as the bug checking that putting it into production does. My users are awesome. I'm glad that people take time out of their day to report issues when the arise. ...and there's no getting around bugs... it's the nature of software development. I've even seen Google bug out many times over the years... I even saw a 404 error on Google a couple weeks ago. That just proves that nobody is perfect.
CPU: AMD Phenom™II X4 955 BE Processor - 4.1GHz | MB: GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD3
RAM: Wintec XMP1600 DDR3 - 8.00GB @ 1600MHz | Video Card: Sapphire HD Radeon (Cypress XT) 5870 2GB | HDD0-3: 1.8TB
Network: Realtek 1Gb Ethernet, Asus 1Gb Switch, D-Link DIR-655, Motorola SB 6120
Posted 31 August 2012 - 06:02 PM
i wonder who got remanded for that one
Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:13 AM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users