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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dbe024bebf3e8f53
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-27 04:30:28 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!attbi_s01.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeff C," <nolongersafeto@userealemailsniff.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <5d6fdb61.0401260215.1e460bdf@posting.google.com>
 <slrnc19roj.4bn.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <ynRNfnZlreeA@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <40152073$0$322$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
 <wccznca1dfh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <AdebBfgL2Msw@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <mailman.36.1075192268.2270.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <slrnc1cjui.4k7.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
Subject: Re: [OT] Spirit - Software failure
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <DRsRb.161689$I06.1619434@attbi_s01>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s01 1075206627 24.147.74.171 (Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:30:27 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:30:27 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:30:27 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4898
Date: 2004-01-27T12:30:27+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Preben Randhol" <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote in
message >
> I don't understand this. Did they think they could take pictures forever
> and the 256 Mb wouldn't be used up or there is a memory leake in the
> software so that when they now take pictures (perhaps with new
> instruments?) there isn't enough room to store the large pictures?
>

I still have yet to see an article that REALY explains what the failure more
here is. People
keep assuming that they know the real details based on these high level
summaries by trying
to apply the little information we get to their own real-world experience or
biases.

If I put on that same hat, I would GUESS that what is happening here is that
they are using the
DosFS component of vxWorks which keeps (at least in prior versions) all of
the FAT tables in RAM and that
while there is still flash space left, the sheer number of files is causing
the RAM allocated to the FAT table
to be used up.

Do I have any facts to back this up....No..I have seen similar problems with
vxWorks filesystems but making
determinations based on half truths is as naive as people that think that
the Arraine 5 blew up because
Ada exceptions are bad.