Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ames!mindcraft.com!karish
From: karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: SVVS requires a panic?  Was: Re: CRASH your TANDEM :
Message-ID: <669405568.1162@mindcraft.com>
Date: 19 Mar 91 17:59:27 GMT
References: <6685@auspex.auspex.com> <669239249.25261@mindcraft.com> <1991Mar18.174115.26445@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Lines: 15

In article <1991Mar18.174115.26445@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>>In article <6685@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>>>AT&T has done some bogus things in the SVVS [ ... ] , but requiring that the
>>>system *panic* wasn't one of them, [...]

>I've seen no claims (to date) that Tandem broke conformance by continuing
>to run when it should panic.

An e-mail followup from one of the people I talked to in January
clarified this:  the SVVS expected a panic when the timeout table
overflowed.  This didn't happen under Tandem's implementation.

	Chuck Karish		karish@mindcraft.com
	Mindcraft, Inc.		(415) 323-9000