Live data from Hacker News

United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

flyertalk.com

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#91

I worked on United's computer systems for a year (never that one though), and so I get nervous when I see a headline like that. True story: one of their systems still runs on a mainframe that has 9 bits in a byte!

I did not know that was ever a thing. I knew that bit counts had been lower - 5 or 6 - but assumed once we hit 8, the whole power-of-2 thing was too comfortable in a binary system to ever be anything besides a power of 2 again - and sure enough, we get 16 bit, 32 bit, and 64 bit systems, and double-byte and triple-byte char sets, etc. Need more space? Take another byte. Was the 9th bit special? Or just a standard bit…

36 bit was popular for scientific computing because 35 gives you a sign bit and 10 decimal digits (yes, that's weird, but that's the argument I read everywhere, including at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/36-bit. 35 likely was skipped because it its only divisors are 5 and 7, limiting instructions to 7 bits even then was felt to be too restricting. For some architectures, the DoD had a say in this, too. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisys_2200_Series_system_ar...)

36 bits got us the 6-bit character (10 digits, 26 letters, and punctuation) with six characters in a word. Because of that, some OSes had six-character file names.

If you want to get upper- and lowercase, you need more than 6 bits. 9 is the smallest divisor larger than 6 of 36, so nine-bit characters made sense.

On such systems, file names could still use 6-bit characters, while applications used 9-bit ones. Also, some instructions could work on words, half words, quarter words, or sixth words.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#92
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISO8601? Easy. 2015-W283. Or maybe (?) 2015188. ISO8601 will hurt your logical soul, don't stare too deeply into its eyes.

Or you know, 2015-07-08, which is perfectly readable to me.

Yes, but ISO8601 defines dozens of ways to write ISO-8601 compatible date-time-stamps.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#93
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of daily UAL passenger seats doesn't change or grow radically over weeks or months. What is the scale-up here? Everyone using their phones to check rez/status/boarding passes?

Some quick googling suggests they take delivery of several-many dozen planes a year (based on various order/delivery/etc. coverage), which would absolutely cause a step function in the number of passenger seats. I expect there's growth on all of these: - Total planes - Total flights - Number of routes - Number of passengers - Passenger utilization of electronic boarding - Passenger utilization of reservation modifica…

Capacity only increased 0.01% over the first quarter of 2015. Passenger loads have remained flat at 81.1%. I would suggest that compared to last year, there hasn't been much change in scale. Also, all of the above systems are not linked together so I'm not sure an increase in one of those factors would be enough to take down and entire system. I could be wrong, I am definitely not an aviation IT expert. (Apparently Untied could use some though, so perhaps I might need to think about adding that to my skills!)

source: http://www.businesstravelnews.com/Travel-Management/Drop-In-...

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#94
post #9

I have a nagging (intuition? feeling?) that software safety/reliability/security needs are going to explode soon (because unreliabilities multiply in non-resilient systems interacting with each other) and that these are simply foreshocks. (yeah, I know security is already a huge deal, but as we come to trust software systems more and more, the safety/reliability factor will come more into play) EDIT: This is also par…

So obviously the "move fast and break things" philosophy is meant for some fun web applications. But what's the equivalent "modern best practice" for systems that are much more weighed towards stability and resilience as opposed to new features?

Systemic quality focus would be a good start. Deming-based management philosophy driving a systems-oriented model.

This actually applies to all businesses; speed improves, market fit improves (quality is just "what is good and valuable" after all), employee happiness improves (exponential gains from that alone). The effects are systemically positive.

But, no one cares, and the belief that we have to crack the whip to get people to make things faster, and we should reward the good people and punish the bad ones—will continue on as pure religious fallacy resulting in the failure or constant-operation-at-the-edge-of-failure of everything involving more than five people, probably until the end of the human race.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#95
post #13

Off-topic: Please use ISO 8601 format(YYYY-MM-DD) for dates in titles. The US date format hurts my poor logical soul. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

I tried to get a former employer to switch to ISO format, since they had offices both in the US and Ireland. There was too much pushback so I didn't succeed, but I at least got them close: 2015-Jul-08.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#96

Nice reminder about a "glitch" happening in one of the datacenters use at the airline I used to work. Went like this: Guy who shows around the new datacenter/ops guy demonstrated how the emergency power off works by lifting the protection plate. Protection plate unhinges suddenly and droppes onto emergency power off button. Hilarity ensues.

A data center where I work had a naked big red switch without a protection plate. Until I flagged up this lack and let the IT people know about it, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

There's a plate on the switch now, praise Eris.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its sad that this is the top comment. When I visit European sites I don't demand they change things just for me. Maybe be more of a gracious visitor?

Why is this being down voted? It is true. When British sites spell things with superfluous letters (colour, for instance,) should HN readers demand that they change it to the more efficient spelling? American English is spoken natively by more people in the world than British English, so therefore must we banish British English from these pages? Of course not. We could argue that the US has the largest number of visi…

I worked for a company that did a special translation of its software from American English to British English alongside the other languages they did. The Brits loved it, although they were mystified by the pricing - it cost them in Pounds as much as it cost the US customer in Dollars.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#98

I worked on United's computer systems for a year (never that one though), and so I get nervous when I see a headline like that. True story: one of their systems still runs on a mainframe that has 9 bits in a byte!

I did not know that was ever a thing. I knew that bit counts had been lower - 5 or 6 - but assumed once we hit 8, the whole power-of-2 thing was too comfortable in a binary system to ever be anything besides a power of 2 again - and sure enough, we get 16 bit, 32 bit, and 64 bit systems, and double-byte and triple-byte char sets, etc. Need more space? Take another byte. Was the 9th bit special? Or just a standard bit…

If hex hadn't been invented yet, 9 bits works better with octal. I don't know if that was a factor.

Re: United Airlines System-Wide Computer Problem

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right, unfortunately. If it's cheaper to buy insurance that will cover the (expected) losses caused by outages, most organizations will choose to do that instead of making the software more failure-resistant. The problem is that insurance only works well for isolated incidents, but a software failure can cause a cascading failure with a huge impact. Insurance companies generally aren't prepared for that…

But aren't the insurance companies smart enough to figure this out and start correcting their rates to be much higher?And if they actually have their acts together, wouldn't those same insurance companies start insisting on basic audits of their client's systems? I actually don't know about this stuff, so any correction of my thoughts is appreciated.

> But aren't the insurance companies smart enough to figure this out and start correcting their rates to be much higher?

That seems like a naive "MARKET WILL FIX IT" approach.

More likely, if the market does fix it, it'll be by having insurance companies deploy actual inspectors who know what they are doing and what sorts of problems to work for.

They might even be a fun combination of physical pentester/irl chaos monkey. Doesn't that sound like a fun job?

Post reply on HN