← Back to context

Comment by rajnathani

10 hours ago

Exactly what I was thinking when the OP comment brought up "regular launches containing replacement hardware", this is easily solvable by actually "treating servers as cattle and not pets" whereby one would simply over-provision servers and then simply replace faulty servers around once per year.

Side: Thanks for sharing about the "bathtub curve", as TIL and I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before especially as it's related to reliability engineering (as from searching on HN (Algolia) that no HN post about the bathtub curve crossed 9 points).

6 comments

rajnathani

Reply
btown  7 hours ago

https://accendoreliability.com/the-bath-tub-curve-explained/ is an interesting breakdown of bath tub curve dynamics for those curious!

  • rtkwe  6 hours ago

    Wonder if you could game that in theory by burning in the components on the surface before launch or if the launch would cause a big enough spike from the vibration damage that it's not worth it.

    • vidarh  4 hours ago

      I suspect you'd absolutely want to burn in before launch, maybe even including simulating some mechanical stress to "shake out" more issues, but it is a valid question how much burn in is worth doing before and after launch.

      1 reply →

    • dapperdrake  4 hours ago

      Maybe they are different types of failure modes. Solar panel semiconductors hate vibration.

      And then, there is of course radiation trouble.

      So those two kinds of burn-in require a launch ti space anyway.