Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:18:24 -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.971026191705.26941E-100000@misery.sdf.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971026230957.19711F-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:

> > > 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.
> 
> ok, 9 to 8 is a 1.125 difference in the ratio?
> i think, what he means is that with a large amount of memory you just have
> more bits that can go bad...

  All the more reason to use parity.

> i'm not really sure though, just playing devil's advocate...
> 
> you still have the same amount of protection, just more risk.

  The same goes for everything.  If the MTBF of one item is X, the MTBF of
N such items is X/N.

Tom




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026191705.26941E-100000>