This article underscores a point I always end up explaining to people who look at Cloud Computing (implemented as "the lambda architecture" in best-of breed scenarios) as a golden hammer that it's a good technology, but only for a certain class of problems. You can do things like monitor trends over time and even act on them with soft deadlines using Cloud. But you will never have a cloud technology control your anti-lock braking system on your car. It basic understanding of CAP theorem, really.
Well you could have locally accessed dynamically provisioned computing capacity (cloud technology) in your car doing that. Remote/shared hosting is a different and older thing than cloud technology (though it's a popular use of cloud technology.)
This is a mission critical safety system. There are some standards which are unhappy with dynamically allocating memory in that situation, let alone dynamically allocating the entire compute resource.
You already do. "Multitasking" covered that decades ago. I'm not sure that's a useful metaphor to cloud technology, though, most especially because multiprocessing systems are exactly where we got our wrong impressions about reliability and the lack of network issues in the first place....
That is not uncommon at all and not unsafe if done right. Hard realtime systems are there for exactly that reason. Since you need to dimension everything to worst case scenarios, gains tend to not be as big as with soft realtime systems but there you have it: Dynamically shared resources in critical systems.
I can see Vehicle Stability Assistance systems that also do ABS breaking, but that's not really dynamic resource allocation so much as new solution. Ditto, for sending information over the cars local network.
Can you give an example where something not related to traction is run on the same CPU as the ABS/traction system?
