Microsoft server crash nearly causes 800-plane pile-up

[NFS4]

A major breakdown in Southern California's air traffic control system last week was partly due to a "design anomaly" in the way Microsoft Windows servers were integrated into the system, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

The radio system shutdown, which lasted more than three hours, left 800 planes in the air without contact to air traffic control, and led to at least five cases where planes came too close to one another, according to comments by the Federal Aviation Administration reported in the LA Times and The New York Times. Air traffic controllers were reduced to using personal mobile phones to pass on warnings to controllers at other facilities, and watched close calls without being able to alert pilots, according to the LA Times report.

The failure was ultimately down to a combination of human error and a design glitch in the Windows servers brought in over the past three years to replace the radio system's original Unix servers, according to the FAA.

http://www.techworld.com/opsys.../index.cfm?NewsID=2275

 

[Kelvrick]

800 plane pile-up i kinda far-fetched, don't you think? I'd like to think the pilots would be able to avoid each other to the point of only 100-plane pile-up.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
800 plane pile-up i kinda far-fetched, don't you think? I'd like to think the pilots would be able to avoid each other to the point of only 100-plane pile-up.

Have you ever seen how many planes are in the air at one time? Especially in places like LAX...

 

[zimu]

wow, thats crazy. can't beleive they went TO windows from linux, especially with such a critical situation

 

[Ameesh]

The servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to prevent a data overload, a union official told the LA Times. To avoid this automatic shutdown, technicians are required to restart the system manually every 30 days. An improperly trained employee failed to reset the system, leading it to shut down without warning, the official said.

 

[Mo0o]

Can't blame it all on MSFT. You can't predict every glitch that happens.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

The servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to prevent a data overload, a union official told the LA Times. To avoid this automatic shutdown, technicians are required to restart the system manually every 30 days. An improperly trained employee failed to reset the system, leading it to shut down without warning, the official said.

i suppose there's more blame on the FAA (or contracter) here then

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Can't blame it all on MSFT. You can't predict every glitch that happens.

In this case, the glitch was Rossman forgetting to hit the reset button

 

[Adul]

brings a whole new meaning to blue screen of death

 

[Evadman]

WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: NFS4

A major breakdown in Southern California's air traffic control system last week was partly due to a "design anomaly" in the way Microsoft Windows servers were integrated into the system, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

The radio system shutdown, which lasted more than three hours, left 800 planes in the air without contact to air traffic control, and led to at least five cases where planes came too close to one another, according to comments by the Federal Aviation Administration reported in the LA Times and The New York Times. Air traffic controllers were reduced to using personal mobile phones to pass on warnings to controllers at other facilities, and watched close calls without being able to alert pilots, according to the LA Times report.

The failure was ultimately down to a combination of human error and a design glitch in the Windows servers brought in over the past three years to replace the radio system's original Unix servers, according to the FAA.

http://www.techworld.com/opsys.../index.cfm?NewsID=2275

hahahaha... that's fscking gold.

How much you wanna bet they'll switch back to something Unix based?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Can't blame it all on MSFT. You can't predict every glitch that happens.

Yet this never happened in decades of using UNIX? I'm no anti microsoft zealot, but in this case, I think we can safely blame MS. In fact, I question anyone who uses windows (even the quite stable NT) for a life critical application.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Evadman
WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

I thought I had read something about win95 in one of the stories, but I'm probably mistaken.

 

[RossMAN]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Can't blame it all on MSFT. You can't predict every glitch that happens.

In this case, the glitch was Rossman forgetting to hit the reset button

He will be dealt with :frown:

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Evadman
WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

I thought I had read something about win95 in one of the stories, but I'm probably mistaken.

Win95 could only stay up for (I believe) 47 days before it crashes.

EDIT: 49.7 days after a quick Google.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Evadman
WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

I thought I had read something about win95 in one of the stories, but I'm probably mistaken.

Win95 could only stay up for (I believe) 47 days before it crashes.

Could you be off by 2.7 days?

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Evadman
WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

I thought I had read something about win95 in one of the stories, but I'm probably mistaken.

Win95 could only stay up for (I believe) 47 days before it crashes.

Could you be off by 2.7 days?

Bah, I just found it in a Google!

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Evadman
WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

I thought I had read something about win95 in one of the stories, but I'm probably mistaken.

I had an email server I was running that has WinME installed as the OS. It lived just fine for over 187 days before I had to reboot it

How can it require a reboot MORE often than WinME? WinME was the worst OS in the history of the planet.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Can't blame it all on MSFT. You can't predict every glitch that happens.

Yet this never happened in decades of using UNIX? I'm no anti microsoft zealot, but in this case, I think we can safely blame MS. In fact, I question anyone who uses windows (even the quite stable NT) for a life critical application.

We had well documented cases with our million dollar + HP-UX systems that after 120 days without a restart certain processes would crash and burn and prevent the database to function properly.

Obviously it's a bit further out than 49 days, but still. I find it hard to believe that they don't have some sort of role over system that is there as backup to this in the event the primary system goes down for whatever reason.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Evadman
WTF? MS designed a critical program that requires a reboot every 49 days? What the hell is up with that?

I thought I had read something about win95 in one of the stories, but I'm probably mistaken.

I had an FTP server I was running that has WinME installed as the OS. It lived just fine for over 400 days before I had to reboot it (IIRC. it may have been 500. I think it was in a thread somehwere when someone asked for it)

How can it require a reboot MORE often than WinME? WinME was the worst OS in the history of the planet.

This is a joke right? The sarcasm module is broken today.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Can't blame it all on MSFT. You can't predict every glitch that happens.

Yet this never happened in decades of using UNIX? I'm no anti microsoft zealot, but in this case, I think we can safely blame MS. In fact, I question anyone who uses windows (even the quite stable NT) for a life critical application.

We had well documented cases with our million dollar + HP-UX systems that after 120 days without a restart certain processes would crash and burn and prevent the database to function properly.

Obviously it's a bit further out than 49 days, but still. I find it hard to believe that they don't have some sort of role over system that is there as backup to this in the event the primary system goes down for whatever reason.

Ever worked with/for the government?

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
This is a joke right? The sarcasm module is broken today.

I lied. It was 187 days.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
This is a joke right? The sarcasm module is broken today.

I lied. It was 187 days.

That's still a long time to go without updating.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
That's still a long time to go without updating.

Believe me, the instant I got a licence for 2000, I installed it. Unfortunately, I was unemployed a while back and had to sell that machine, license and all. I hate unemployement.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
That's still a long time to go without updating.

Believe me, the instant I got a licence for 2000, I installed it. Unfortunately, I was unemployed a while back and had to sell that machine, license and all. I hate unemployement.

I know the feeling.