Comment by jcelerier
1 year ago
51 days * 86400 seconds * 1000
=> 4406400000
2^32
=> 4294967296
the coincidence seems unlikely, it's basically ~~5 hours and a half~~ 30 hours of difference if one has a 1-ms counter increment
1 year ago
51 days * 86400 seconds * 1000
=> 4406400000
2^32
=> 4294967296
the coincidence seems unlikely, it's basically ~~5 hours and a half~~ 30 hours of difference if one has a 1-ms counter increment
Watch Windows 95 crash live as it exceeds 49.7 days uptime https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28340101
Must be a northwest washington thing.
It's a day and a half difference, and since 2^32 is the smaller number that would be pretty catastrophic. Pretty likely it's coincidence.
Where did you get 5 hours and a half? It seems to be closer to 31 hours:
from me typing too quickly in bc, apparently :')
Not getting it.. yeah the famous 32 bit ms overflow after 49 something days. But why then 51 here? Shouldn't they be required to reboot after 49 days please please? :D
Possibly cumulative error in the timing source?
It's possible to run tasks instead of starting every second, starting one second after the previous iteration finishes.
So if you have something that checks the system health every millisecond, and keeps a count instead of a duration, then if it takes a couple microseconds to complete you might get something less than 86 million ticks per day instead of 86.4 million.
2 replies →
Or just ticking every 1.025 ms (e.g. at 975 Hz instead of 1khz)... that brings us to :
so a difference of 1.12 hours with the "51 days" mention.
This is even scarier than the base concern.
Maybe it takes 2 days to boot the entire thing?