Re: [midatlanticretro] Re: OT Humor
- The assumption is that the replacement modules are known to be good.
It that's in question, then all bets are off.
Presumably, in a mission-critical application like SAGE, there would
be good spares on hand. Some large systems
have test bench ways to determine operational quality off-line, so
you'd know that your spare modules are OK.
But, yes... if the spares are questionable, then the problem is a
whole lot bigger.
73 de Ray
On Oct 7, 2008, at 10:06 AM, fairlanefastback wrote:
> Whats to say all the replacement modules are free from any defects in
> such a scenario? One can introduce a new problem unwittingly in such
> a methodology.
> --- In email@example.com, Ray Sills <raysills@...>
>> Hi Mike:
>> In a certain sense, that method of troubleshooting does optimize the
>> time it takes to get the unit functional. By "walling-off" half the
>> possible defective units by replacing them with good modules, you can
>> quickly determine where the fault lies. Of course, as you way, you
>> have to have at least 50% spare modules of the total that are known
>> be good. And by replacing half of all the modules, you have a 50-50
>> chance of getting
>> the system back up on the first swap.
>> If the system is still bad after that swap, then the same procedure
>> will work by swapping out half again of the remaining un-swapped
>> modules, etc.
>> It would mean a maximum of 4 swaps to find and replace the bad
>> module. And since it was a SAGE system, involving national defense,
>> you'd want to get it back up ASAP. That's the point, of course.
>> 73 de Ray
>> On Oct 7, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Mike Loewen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Stan Brewer wrote:
>>>> How did DEC Field Service Engineers change flat tires?
>>>> They took the spare out and kept swapping out tires until they had
>>>> 4 good
>>>> ones on the car! : )
>>> That reminds me of the first time I was exposed to the "shotgun"
>>> technique of troubleshooting. It was on the SAGE system, and one of
>>> systems developed a problem which was quickly narrowed down to a
>>> module of
>>> 20 pluggable units. Rather than taking the time to logically figure
>>> which PU was at fault, the tech replaced half of the PUs and re-ran
>>> tests. He continued replacing half of the remaining PUs until he
>>> was left
>>> with the bad one. He explained that sometimes you don't have time
>>> to be
>>> logical, but instead have to get the system back up as soon as
>>> I don't particularly agree with this technique, but if time is
>>> and you have the spares I suppose it makes sense.
>>> Mike Loewen mloewen@...
>>> Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- This is the dumbest argument EVER.
Fairline: Herb takes history seriously. That's good. It doesn't mean the man lacks a funny bone.
Herb: Not everyone takes history quite AS seriously as you or I. That's good, too.
From: fairlanefastback <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sunday, Oct 12, 2008 8:58 am
Subject: [midatlanticretro] Re: Intel MDS on EBay Item number: 170268336762
--- In email@example.com, "Herb Johnson"
> So, I think the only loose thread, is why you were surprised when someof your remarks were taken more seriously than you expected. I presume
you will be less surprised about that in the future.
I'm not sure that I am willing to have to put *WARNING JOKE* or *
TONGUE IN CHEEK* as it seems would be required for you. A "LOL"
denotes a joke. And of course, one can always ask for clarification
if one isn't sure since written communications are not always as clear as the spoken word. Should I counter with a similarly demanding "I
presume you will be less likely to miss the meaning of a LOL or smiley in the future."? That reads like a declaration. Is there really
anything wrong with maybe being a little less uptight and a little
more civil perhaps? I really hope you ponder that for a moment.
This list, does it only want hardcore super serious guys? Thats not very inviting to guys less so I think anyway.
> One comment. I don't think much of using smiley's on statements, soone can later say "I was only kidding".
So a smiley or LOL is never sincere? Its only always meant to have a excuse later on that something was not meant seriously? If I read you correctly thats a pretty negative view and one you should not take on my usage of it.
Anyway I'll shut my mouth on this subject otherwise for the moment, just food for thought in return.
Yahoo! Groups Links