What is the difference between ESD redundancy and heavy reliance?

In my personal view, when discussing redundancy and heavy computation, the concept of redundant fault tolerance comes to mind. Heavy industries rely on fault tolerance; for example, a triple-CPU setup involves three CPU modules operating simultaneously, with the calculation results being compared using a 3:2 ratio. Redundancy should refer to hot standby of hardware components, such as triple-CPU setups; if a single CPU card is completely damaged, the remaining CPU cards can continue to perform control functions. Therefore, it can be loosely argued as a difference between soft and hard. (Recently, there has been debate regarding the difference between triple configuration and triple redundancy; a single CPU card with 3 CPUs should be considered to have a triple configuration rather than triple redundancy, right?) ) Waiting for the insights of experts. . .

In my opinion, \"triple configuration\" refers to the presence of three CPUs or three I/O channels within a single piece of hardware; this is what is meant by triple configuration. On the other hand, \"redundancy\" implies a fundamental separation at the hardware level. Triple redundancy would mean having 3 separate power supplies, 3 separate CPUs, 3 separate I/O channels, and so on. Call for experts~~~

Follow this post; I hope experts can provide the correct answer.

German company Hima has always emphasized this issue during training, but I haven’t understood it yet; I’m continuing to look for an answer.

My personal understanding is that \"heavy emphasis on redundancy\" is a concept that arises for the purpose of voting and for improving safety levels; redundancy, on the other hand, represents a complete duplication of information, and it is a safety concept designed to prevent controller failures

I’m working on an ESD system and would appreciate some expert advice