Talk:Fault tolerance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restructuring[edit]

Hi,

I recommend to restructure the whole article to a more contemporary/state-of-the-art view. First of all, fault tolerance is not graceful degradation. I would like a critical counter-reader to discuss this matter.

Earthphoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"fault tolerance is not graceful degradation" Agreed. Furthermore, the term graceful degradation is used only once in the article, within the anti-aliasing example. 38.97.97.99 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For several reasons, incremental improvements are almost always more successful than a rewrite. Instead of proposing to restructure the article, find one thing in the article that you can improve and WP:FIXIT. Repeat. ~KvnG 13:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your point that fault tolerance is not synonymous with graceful degradation. Fault tolerance specifically refers to a system's capability to handle faults without any degradation or downtime. In the event of an error, end-users remain unaware of any issues.
On the other hand, if an error occurs and there is an interruption in service or a graceful degradation of performance, we refer to the system as 'resilient.' In such cases, the system adapts to the error, ensuring continued service but with some level of acknowledged impact on performance. Wikizain (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

graceful degradation in software[edit]

The summary of a recent edit[1] to hash table says "the performance curve of the hash table has nothing to do with "graceful degradation", or fault tolerance."

The unobtrusive JavaScript article has a large section on "degrading gracefully".

Since software does not "wear out" in the same way that hardware wears out, is there a better article on this sort of graceful degradation in software that those two articles should link to, rather than linking to this article that focuses on hardware?

Or is the concept of "fault tolerance" broad enough to include both techniques to mitigate hardware wearout and also the above software concepts? --DavidCary (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pair-and-Spare DMR[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to translate the article to Turkish. I was stuck on this part : "A final circuit selects the output of the pair that does not proclaim that it is in error". This parts confused me. I mean If one of the pairs produced an error, will final circuit not declare that there is an error in final result? one of the previous sentences is "a voting circuit that detects any mismatch between their operations and outputs a signal indicating that there is an error", I'm assuming this signal is sent to the final circuit. So System hides that there is an error ? Could someone with experience on this matter, explain this situation? Thanks in advanced. --Guyver (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 devices in two pairs. Each pair is in working or mismatched state. If both are working, you can use either. If Only one is working, use the working one. If both are mismatched, you're screwed. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation Kvng. --Guyver (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old merge proposals[edit]

the proposed merges with elegant degradation and damage tolerance don't seem to be under discussion anymore, but the templates are still on the article page. There is also no immediately apparent indication of the outcome on this talk page. What happened?--Macks2008 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to point discussion at this section. I will close these out in December 2015 unless someone else does so first.
I don't support either of these merges. Elegant degradation is about internal fatigue and there is no fault. In Damage tolerance damage does not cause a fault. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be consensus for this merge. I have removed the merge banners. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fault tolerance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle braking[edit]

On some motorcycles (i.e. the Honda Goldwing) the front and rear brake systems are not completely independent. The foot brake pedal operates both the rear brake and one caliper of the dual front brake system. This was primarily developed to compensate for a less-experienced operator's tendency to overuse the rear brake with a resulting higher potential for rear-wheel lockup and inefficient braking or even loss of control.65.49.176.54 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fault tolerance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fault_tolerance&oldid=1205852167"