> So, we're considering some system that (we think so here) can > guarantee meeting its deadlines with a given (by the operator) probability.
You cannot prove determism with statistics. Determinism can only be proven be defining, discovering, characterizing and testing each and ever possible state AND transition.
What would you say if our considered system, say, can mathematically achieve this (please see below, next statement)
> We imply here that true HRT is impossible in reality and any single > system that exists in the word meets hard real-time requirements with > some probability. If it does not – HRT speaks of system failure.
Ah, how you are 'getting it'. YES, YES, YES, I absolutely agree with this statement!
That's a first step we must to achieve in our discussion :). I'm aware that you think so. I'm also thinking so. But we were wrongly messed up with fault tolerance before… We know now, that [any HRT system CAN miss its deadlines when in a faulty state] – that's a statement. Then, lets take a look at our considered system as of blackbox to the external world. The world knows nothing of its internals, state machines, transitions, and languages. The world is just looking at the system in terms of request-responses and timing constrains, it is expecting. Say, the world thinks of the system must to work for it with some predictable reliability. Please note, missed deadlines are just faults here. If we can mathematically prove the system is reliable not worse than expected reliability, may we think it is HRT? -- [email protected] mailing list
