Talk:Fault-tolerant design
 | The contents of the Fault-tolerant design page were merged into Fault tolerance on 2013-11-21 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Added 2 paragraphs in the "disadvantages" section but couldn't figure out how to format it right. (I want to skip a line, but stay part of the list, without inserting a new bullet.) Sorry for the inconvenience. Mattj2 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I solved the issue by rewording your contribution as a new bullet item. I don't understand how the Comet example fit in, however. What was the fault tolerant component which masked the failure of another component in the Comet ? Here is the removed paragraph:
Sometimes fault tolerant design can make it virtually impossible to figure out how a system failed. The [De Havilland Comet] was famous for being the first aircraft to experience metal fatigue due to flying at high altitudes. After thousands of pressurized climbs and descents, the thin fuselage metal around the Comet's distinctive rectangular, large windows would begin to crack and eventually cause explosive decompression of the cabin and catastrophic structural failure. It was only after three of these planes exploded mysteriously that investigators were finally able to uncover the problem.
- StuRat 10:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Should be linked to other pages[edit]
FT should have reference to Fail-safe, Fail soft, Graceful degradation and a number of other terms. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)