Products > Test Equipment
SDS1204X-E scope freezing when collecting waveform
nctnico:
--- Quote from: tv84 on June 22, 2022, 11:07:06 am ---
--- Quote from: tautech on June 22, 2022, 10:49:17 am ---This is what dropped into our Inbox
Socket communication problem
We found a TCP socket communication problem discussion in below link of EEVblog
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1204x-e-scope-freezing-when-collecting-waveform/
It maybe a bug for the socket. If we analyze correct, it will be solved in the new firmware.
Please send the attachment firmware to the customer. And feedback to me the result.
That's just gotta give you the smileys. ;D
--- End quote ---
Siglent 1 - 0 A Brands
--- End quote ---
No. It would surprise me if a bug like this would escape testing in a product from an A brand. After all testing remote operation can be automated very easely. There is no reason to cheer about a beta firmware that is thrown over the hedge for a customer to test as well. It would be better to take a few days and make sure the bug is fixed without any regressions instead of using a customer as a firmware tester. If you look closely you'll notice that A brands are very reluctant to release beta firmware; they want released firmware to go through thourough testing.
bd139:
--- Quote from: nctnico on June 22, 2022, 09:46:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: tv84 on June 22, 2022, 11:07:06 am ---
--- Quote from: tautech on June 22, 2022, 10:49:17 am ---This is what dropped into our Inbox
Socket communication problem
We found a TCP socket communication problem discussion in below link of EEVblog
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1204x-e-scope-freezing-when-collecting-waveform/
It maybe a bug for the socket. If we analyze correct, it will be solved in the new firmware.
Please send the attachment firmware to the customer. And feedback to me the result.
That's just gotta give you the smileys. ;D
--- End quote ---
Siglent 1 - 0 A Brands
--- End quote ---
No. It would surprise me if a bug like this would escape testing in a product from an A brand. After all testing remote operation can be automated very easely. There is no reason to cheer about a beta firmware that is thrown over the hedge for a customer to test as well. It would be better to take a few days and make sure the bug is fixed without any regressions instead of using a customer as a firmware tester. If you look closely you'll notice that A brands are very reluctant to release beta firmware; they want released firmware to go through thourough testing.
--- End quote ---
I spent plenty of time doing test automation with A brand test gear. It was buggy as hell and difficult if not impossible to get fixed as half the firmware was in ROM. We’re talking 12 month turnaround.
Also there’s nothing to suggest this won’t have gone through full regression testing before general release. But on step one you always get the issue mitigated.
The turnaround here is commendable on all levels. .
tv84:
--- Quote from: nctnico on June 22, 2022, 09:46:48 pm ---No. It would surprise me if a bug like this would escape testing in a product from an A brand. After all testing remote operation can be automated very easely. There is no reason to cheer about a beta firmware that is thrown over the hedge for a customer to test as well. It would be better to take a few days and make sure the bug is fixed without any regressions instead of using a customer as a firmware tester. If you look closely you'll notice that A brands are very reluctant to release beta firmware; they want released firmware to go through thourough testing.
--- End quote ---
The software was not "thrown over the hedge for a customer to test as well". AFAIK the software was provided specifically to that customer since he was the one who reported the problem and is in a better position to finally check if that solves his problem (like any other betatester).
They could have find an issue BUT that doesn't mean it solved the whole client problem. So why issue a patch only in a next release, tested only by what Siglent QA was able to test, and find out that it didn't yet solve the whole original problem?
This action is perfectly correct IMO.
No QA department will be able to replicate all the cases a equipment can be used by its customers. You sure know that very well.
2N3055:
--- Quote from: tv84 on June 23, 2022, 09:19:52 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on June 22, 2022, 09:46:48 pm ---No. It would surprise me if a bug like this would escape testing in a product from an A brand. After all testing remote operation can be automated very easely. There is no reason to cheer about a beta firmware that is thrown over the hedge for a customer to test as well. It would be better to take a few days and make sure the bug is fixed without any regressions instead of using a customer as a firmware tester. If you look closely you'll notice that A brands are very reluctant to release beta firmware; they want released firmware to go through thourough testing.
--- End quote ---
The software was not "thrown over the hedge for a customer to test as well". AFAIK the software was provided specifically to that customer since he was the one who reported the problem and is in a better position to finally check if that solves his problem (like any other betatester).
They could have find an issue BUT that doesn't mean it solved the whole client problem. So why issue a patch only in a next release, tested only by what Siglent QA was able to test, and find out that it didn't yet solve the whole original problem?
This action is perfectly correct IMO.
No QA department will be able to replicate all the cases a equipment can be used by its customers. You sure know that very well.
--- End quote ---
@TV84, exactly...
The way I understood, a debug FW was sent to customer to verify exact problem. FW with a fix will be published for general use after proper regression testing is done. That is exactly what Keysight (for instance) would do...
MathWizard:
I have the hacked SDS1104x-e, and I have old BIOS, (TT did link me the bios before)
Yesterday I had 2 freeze ups, that required (I guess) a reboot. I've had them before, but not in ages (but I haven't used it much this last year)
While using 2 channels, on 500us /div, and the 700k or next highest memory depth
I also had the wifi dongle in, talking to my modem, which talks to my PC, and I use firefox to look at the scope. The firefox page updates pretty slow, and always stops and lags for a moment, a lot more than the scope sometimes does as it refreshes the screen.
I usually always have the wifi on when running, but I don't usually have the web interface running unless I want a screenshot.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version