Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:45:04 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Parity Ram Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026184104.26941B-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971026220237.19711D-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > Do you know anything of Richard Hamming's assertion that parity memory > > > (the old fashioned even/odd type) is-a-bad -thing in large > > > configurations? > > > > I think it bullshit. I've never heard of this before. Nor have you in > > the two times you've mentioned it, actually stated what is supposed to be > > so bad about it. > > more bits means more chance of error even if they are "error-correcting" > bits? And how is that bad? Even simple parity systems will catch 100% of all single bit errors, regardless of where the bit appears. More bits mean more redundancy. That means it gets safer, not riskier. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026184104.26941B-100000>