Re: Time between memory failure

Article View: comp.arch

Article #22200

#22200

From: Terry Friedrichsen
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1990 17:25

22 lines
1518 bytes

In article <3938@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, davidb@braa.inmos.co.uk (David Boreham) writes:
> No personal computer or workstation built nowadays needs parity or EDC.
> Worry about soft errors only if you are doing work for the DOD, a bank,
> medical systems or are using buckets of devices

Now wait.  I've seen a couple of instances of memory parity errors on
fairly new PCs.  Are you really trying to say that I'd be better off
not knowing about memory parity errors, and I should just let programs
quietly screw up?  Or am I missing your point in some way?  I know your
article addressed soft chip errors exclusively, but your conclusion seems
a bit strong.

Memory reliability involves more than just the RAM chip itself; there's
many a slip twixt the chip and the CPU.  I'll buy the idea that errors
are so infrequent that ECC is unnecessary overkill, but sorry, I just
GOTTA have that parity check ...

Terry R. Friedrichsen
TERRY@SDSC.EDU  (alternate address; I live and work in Tucson)

Disclaimer:  the company doesn't read my messages, so it can't
		possibly know what I'm saying!

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1911@sunquest.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!sunquest!terry

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!sunquest!terry
From: terry@sunquest.UUCP (Terry Friedrichsen)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Time between memory failure
Summary: parity is not just for farmers any more
Keywords: parity, memory, failure
Message-ID: <1911@sunquest.UUCP>
Date: 6 Feb 90 17:25:32 GMT
Organization: Sunquest Information Systems, Tucson
Lines: 22