Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:12:33 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu> To: Tom <tom@sdf.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Parity Ram Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971026230957.19711F-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026184104.26941B-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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... i'm not really sure though, just playing devil's advocate... you still have the same amount of protection, just more risk.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971026230957.19711F-100000>