The behavior you observe is correct because setInterval uses signed 32-bit values.
2147483647 is the maximum value as per specification, see [1]
2592000000 in your code exceeds that maximum and gets converted to a negative value, which is invalid so 0 is used instead.

  [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WindowOrWorkerGlobalScope/setInterval

On the other hand, I agree that conversion could be smarter and clamp the invalid values to the maximum value of 2147483647 and emit a warning in console.

****Bulk Edit****

Setting as P1 for test team to prioritize in triaging.

Tested in chrome #56.0.2924.87 and Canary #58.0.3006.0 on Mac 10.12.2 and not able to reproduce the issue.Please find the screen shot for your reference.

@reporter: Could you please let me know if i have missed anything and if possible, provide us with a sample steps of the issue which would help us to triage the issue further.

Thanks in Advance.

Deleted: 689947.png 226 KB

	689947.png 226 KB View Download

It's not actually running every 0ms.

  var t = window.performance.now();
  var count = 0;
  var id = window.setInterval(() => {
    if (++count > 7) {
      window.clearInterval(id);
    }
    t2 = window.performance.now();
    console.log(t2 - t);
    t = t2;
  }, 2592000000);

This code produces:

1.3500000000349246
0.8449999999720603
1
1.0249999999650754
3.9700000000884756
4.009999999951106
4.039999999979045
3.995000000053551

That's approximately {1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4}, which is what you would expect if you'd used an interval of <1 since it clamps to 1ms for the first iterations and then after 4 iterations it clamps to 4ms.

The current behaviour is exactly what we would expect from the spec (and is also what we see in other browsers): https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#windoworworkerglobalscope-mixin:dom-setinterval

The timeout is defined as a long, which is defined as an Int32. No clamping is specified so normal conversion is performed which truncates and then returns the value modulo 2^31.

To introduce clamping we'd have to change the spec to add [Clamp] to the definition of setInterval (and setTimeout). I don't see the value since this would only affect someone who actually wanted an interval of 25+ days, who presumably would want the timeout to be exact rather than arbitrarily clamped.