Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca.wv.tek.com!frip!andrew
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Reliability
Message-ID: <5904@orca.wv.tek.com>
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:54:32 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> <15679@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Sender: andrew@orca.wv.tek.com
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
Lines: 12

[]

	"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."

The usual counter-argument is to consider a system which takes an error
while printing paychecks.  You'd much rather see the system crash than
finish printing bad checks.

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)    [UUCP]
                        (andrew%frip.wv.tek.com@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]