From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Greg Bond Subject: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception? Date: 1996/07/31 Message-ID: <32001F86.49D1@ee.ubc.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 171338346 references: <4tb8vv$bna@zeus.orl.mmc.com> <838637917snz@nezumi.demon.co.uk> <838749361.12233.0@assen.demon.co.uk> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Dept. of Electrical Eng., UBC mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC) Date: 1996-07-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John McCabe wrote: > snip... > > I find it difficult to understand why the design and development team > even considered maintaining the CPU load at <80% for this particular > case. If they requested a waiver on that margin and were refused then > obviously their prime contractor (or whatever) is to blame, but there > is no way that CPU loadings with margins of 20% should have been > enforced at the risk of mission failure. > > <..snip..> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a lower CPU utilization help ensure that hard deadlines will be met in exceptional copmutational circumstances (thereby helping to prevent mission failure....)? -- * Greg Bond * Dept. of Electrical Eng. * email: bond@ee.ubc.ca * Univ. of British Columbia * voice: (604) 822 0899 * 2356 Main Mall * fax: (604) 822 5949 * Vancouver, BC * web: http://www.ee.ubc.ca/~bond * Canada, V6T 1Z4