Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!mirror!ima!haddock!news
From: news@haddock.ima.isc.com (overhead)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Reliability
Keywords: parity checkers detection
Message-ID: <15679@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 17 Jan 90 18:14:35 GMT
References: <34030@mips.mips.COM> <4322@nttmhs.ntt.JP> <39807@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <3101@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <28674@amdcad.AMD.COM> <7566@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <34469@mips.mips.COM> <7608@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: suitti@anchovy.UUCP (Stephen Uitti)
Organization: Interactive Systems Co
Lines: 22

In article <7608@pt.cs.cmu.edu> lindsay@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>In article <34469@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>> a) What are CPU differences between micros and mainframes in this area?
>> Are there reliability features of current big machine CPUs that
>> are impossible to duplicate in micros? hard to duplicate? easy, but,
>> too expensive? Are there features of micros that make them easier to
>> make reliable systems from?

At least around here, the UNIX based workstations run around the
clock.  If you want reliability, why not periodically run
dignostics?  A 'cron' job could run at 3 AM and report any
errors.  The CPU, FPU, RAM, DISK, and some other parts could be
checked reasonably well without consuming too much resources.
I'd prefer this to parity, where the only thing the machine does
is crash.  I still say provide real error correction, or don't bother.

Lots of machines out there have never had any real diagnostics
run on them since installation.  In particular, disk blocks do
become bad.  This can be very frustrating, etc.  The idea of
running periodic diagnostics is not new.

Stephen.