Did you not see the smiley face? Or the @bogdanw explanation (post #17) that this was a joke.This is a ridiculous post. Many of us, including myself, use macs as servers as they are UNIX based and very reliable hardware and software.
Did you not see the smiley face? Or the @bogdanw explanation (post #17) that this was a joke.This is a ridiculous post. Many of us, including myself, use macs as servers as they are UNIX based and very reliable hardware and software.
I think this is new (with Tahoe). Reasons:![]()
We Found a Ticking Time Bomb in macOS TCP Networking - It Detonates After Exactly 49 Days - Photon Blog
Photon powers conversational AI agents on iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, and more. Open-source Spectrum framework + SDK for seamless agent interactions.photon.codes
copied the windows 95 bug I see. Google "windows 95 49 days".Hi,
No News at MacRumors?
Michael Tsai did also wrote something in his blog. Good man!
![]()
We Found a Ticking Time Bomb in macOS TCP Networking - It Detonates After Exactly 49 Days - Photon Blog
Photon powers conversational AI agents on iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, and more. Open-source Spectrum framework + SDK for seamless agent interactions.photon.codes
Only sort of. The Windows 95 bug is not in TCP (or other networking). Rather it is a completely different bug but which is also caused by the overflow of a 32 bit unsigned integer counting millisecond ticks. The W95 bug causes immediate crash whilst the Tahoe(?) bug just disables new TCP connections at some time after 49.7 days.copied the windows 95 bug I see. Google "windows 95 49 days".
I don’t have a Mac, but don’t you get updates more frequently than this, requiring restarts?
Why is that? You just close the laptop. Besides, you shouldn't leave a laptop plugged in all the time. I don't, for example. And as an aside: an M4 MacBook Air consumes very little energy in sleep mode. Amazing, I think.Green Plan: shut down when done for the day. Save the world with your 2-3 watts.
Just set the "max. charge level" in macOS to 80 or 85% and you should be ok with letting the MacBook on AC for prolonged time. No need to take care any more: It's the fully-charged over prolonged time scenarioWhy is that? You just close the laptop. Besides, you shouldn't leave a laptop plugged in all the time. I don't, for example. And as an aside: an M4 MacBook Air consumes very little energy in sleep mode. Amazing, I think.
I haven't shut down my Windows in months, unless this was dictated by updates.I used to shut down my Windows machine almost every day. Since I got a Mac as my main desktop, I rarely shut it down. Still, old habits die hard and I do find myself shutting down my Mac maybe every month or so just because it feels like the right thing to do. Clear the memory, close out everything and get a fresh restart. So, I do that.
Yup. And that would be why I never encounter this bug despite keeping my Mac Studio on 24/7/365, putting it to sleep but never rebooting it except for updates (or the rare crash).Does't matter. Restarting for updates has the same effect as shutting down as far as this issue is concerned.
That's a very good question! Although, some bugs do manage to survive into newer versions. I'm just remembering the bug where the cursor would jump from the Apple menu, after selecting "Shut Down," across the entire screen. I reproduced that with an AppleCare support representative back then, and it was later fixed.It is annoying that Photon did not say what macOS version is running on their servers. Nevertheless I found the Photon article an interesting read with exactly the sort of evidence to make Apple sit up and take notice.
This is all rather strange. Back then, the saying was: you don't need to turn off or restart an Apple notebook. Closing and reopening it is enough, because it's not Windows.Maxwell Smart: 'Well, Chief. This sounds like the old buffer flush bug'.
I suppose it is more like the Y2K scenario...not enough bits.
Read the actual document in the first post, particularly the "TIME_WAIT" section, to see why.Why does the number of ticks need to be counted for the networking,
photon.codes
That's the real question - probably an oversight of something that should have changed when MacOS/OS X went 64 bit years ago. Someone/some group just missed it.and why in the heck did they use a 32-bit u_int? For a start it would make more sense to use a 64-bit value (what is the point of having 64-bit systems?!).
Why 32-bit? TCP (unlike UDP) is a protocol for reliable transmission - no lost packets however bad the network medium. Lost packets are retransmitted and reassembled in the correct order. One method of assisting reliable transmission (RFC 1323 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1323 and RFC 7323 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7323) uses a monotonically increasing counter - in most systems every millisecond. The size of this counter is baked into the packet format as TCP Timestamp. This was at a time when 32 bits was a generous size and it still is more than sufficient for maintaining reliable transmission. The size of the TCP Timestamp is not going to change. It is up to each TCP implementation to manage what happens when this overflows and starts again from zero - and that has failed in Tahoe due to a change in the code.Why does the number of ticks need to be counted for the networking, and why in the heck did they use a 32-bit u_int? For a start it would make more sense to use a 64-bit value (what is the point of having 64-bit systems?!).
It doesn't have to be a millisecond, so long as it is a monotonically increasing counter. Needs to be shorter than minimum transmission time. Most operating systems (which do implement TCP Timestamps) use a millisecond. As an aside, my understanding is that Windows since Windows 2008 does not implement TCP Timestamps.Anyone know why they need ms resolution counter in the middle of TCP?
Many routers use 32-bit unsigned integers to count bytes for statistical purposes. Network management systems reading those counters need to allow for overflow. This overflow can happen multiple times in a day (every 4 GBytes). They do not cause crashes of the router.A similar bug exists in many routers for the same reason - they count bytes received and sent, and eventually overflow and crash or corrupt the router.