User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 5:58:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Sounds like they are trying to do damage prevention but what clients really want is ownership and a fix yesterday. You can actually enhance your value to a client by owning an issue. Too many software OEMs do what your senior management is doing and it has given software companies a reputation akin to used car dealers.
Your bosses aren't going to buy into your outlook until you can prove to them that it affects the bottom line more positively than theirs. Does it make them money, save them money or make the process more efficient? You need to prove at least one of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 6:03:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like they are trying to do damage prevention but what clients really want is ownership and a fix yesterday. You can actually enhance your value to a client by owning an issue. Too many software OEMs do what your senior management is doing and it has given software companies a reputation akin to used car dealers. Your bosses aren't going to buy into your outlook until you can prove to them that it affects the bottom line more positively than theirs. Does it make them money, save them money or make the process more efficient? You need to prove at least one of those. The error only occurs when someone is using two copies of our software at the same time, which they should never be doing anyway. It doesn't save them any time. We do have a long-term fix in the pipeline but it will take quite a while to implement for reasons I can't get into. Also this is gov't owned and funded software so profit isn't really a consideration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 6:28:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Easy fix - Have it try to open a socket at start up. If the socket is already in use, there's already a copy running so shut down. The end user can try to start copies all day long but only one will run at a time.
Make the socket configurable to account for sockets that are in use by other applications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 7:07:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: We recently discovered a bug in our software. If you run 2 or 3 instances of our software simultaneously, you can get it to crash. Leadership somehow got it into their head that it was a system performance issue. So I've been going back and forth with senior leadership for the last two weeks trying to draft the public messaging. Just today I got a message from them saying "Avoid CPU utilization above 90%" and "communicate system requirements" The problem is that it will crash on any system with 2 or 3 copies running at the same time. It doesn't matter what the system specs are. But leadership keeps trying to assign hardware specifications to the issue, even after I told them more than a week ago "It's an operator behavior issue" Also there is no purpose to running multiple copies at the same time. 1. Make sure you've communicated the actual root cause over email or something else that leaves a record. 2. Give them whatever they ask for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 7:30:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Easy fix - Have it try to open a socket at start up. If the socket is already in use, there's already a copy running so shut down. The end user can try to start copies all day long but only one will run at a time. Make the socket configurable to account for sockets that are in use by other applications. A mutex would work as well and probably be simpler. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2023 5:45:56 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. Make sure you've communicated the actual root cause over email or something else that leaves a record. 2. Give them whatever they ask for. Always CYA! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2023 8:15:55 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A mutex would work as well and probably be simpler. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Easy fix - Have it try to open a socket at start up. If the socket is already in use, there's already a copy running so shut down. The end user can try to start copies all day long but only one will run at a time. Make the socket configurable to account for sockets that are in use by other applications. A mutex would work as well and probably be simpler. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2023 11:02:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True, if the issue involves protecting a particular resource to prevent a race condition, in which case a mutex would be a good solution. The socket technique, on the other hand, prevents multiple iterations of an application from being run at the same time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Easy fix - Have it try to open a socket at start up. If the socket is already in use, there's already a copy running so shut down. The end user can try to start copies all day long but only one will run at a time. Make the socket configurable to account for sockets that are in use by other applications. A mutex would work as well and probably be simpler. I use Global mutexes in C# to make sure only a single instance of an application can run at the same time. I suppose other languages could necessitate a different technique though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2023 8:04:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:...Just today I got a message from them saying "Avoid CPU utilization above 90%" and "communicate system requirements"... OK I can give them the "communicate system requirements" but why would management think that you telling the customer "Avoid CPU utilization above 90%" is in any way different than telling them "Avoid running more than 1 instance on a system at a time" ??? LOL if its merely because the first one there is the wording that *THEY* came up with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2023 10:25:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Ask them to add verbiage that states each instance of the app takes 50% of system resources. That would be compatible with their guidance. Sometimes you just have to manage up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 1:25:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Well this gets more fun.
Turns out the tester was now able to get it to fail with only 1 instance of the program. Executing certain memory-heavy tasks underloads the CPU compared to other less-memory-intesive tasks. So with a different scenario he can get the errors. 3% errors in each simulation scenario errored simulations can be re-ran and typically succeed the 2nd time (with 97% success) And I have to figure out how to communicate this issue to the users. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
