>I think we're going to have systems which use some computers simultaneously. If one fails or needs to be rebooted the system would still be live and have the same knowledge.
You are absolutely right, and the future is here 4 decades ago Anon. 'Fly-by-wire' in aviation commonly has multiple, redundant, control computers running simultaneously. Usually in groups of 3 on modern aircraft (Although the Space Shuttle sported 4
different CnC systems).
All the computers receive all the same inputs, all of them calculate these and (presumably) output all the same outputs. Or it is to be hoped so, at least.
And that's the basic point; by having these redundant flight computers all running, they validate the common consensus by cross-checks and elections. If one of the three malfunctions, the other two kick it out until it 'comes to it's senses'. This leaves the actually not too unlikely
scenario question "What happens if the two
don't agree while the third is out of commission?" Thus the Shuttle's four
machines on board.
Additionally, it's not uncommon for highly-critical systems to require different contractors and different software running on at least one of the systems. That way if an unknown bug of some sort suddenly crops up, it's more likely the oddball system won't exhibit it.
Safety-critical controls systems are both a complicated and fascinating field, and one ultimately of high importance to /robowaifu/. >>98
>or possibly SD Express 8.0 cards in the future with 4 GB/s read speed.
Neat, I didn't know about that yet.