From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Sep 17 20:22:08 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA09020
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GndRsh.aac.dev.com (GndRsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA08988;
          Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by GndRsh.aac.dev.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA01376; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
Message-Id: <199609180321.UAA01376@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
Subject: Re: RAM parity error
In-Reply-To: <199609180222.TAA09684@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Sep 17, 96 07:22:06 pm"
To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  * If you have ``logic parity'' instead of true parity you have defeated
>  * 75 % of the purpose of even having parity on memory.  
> 
> 75%?  I thought that was 100% ;)  (Ok, maybe it can check the memory
> bus failure, but how often would that happen?)

Ooopsss.. didn't hit this one last time... you would be surprised at
how often the error actually occurs on the BUS and not from the data
out of the chips.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                      rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation Company                 Reliable computers for FreeBSD