Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucdn!leek
From: LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Parity Checking / ECC RAM on the A3000
Message-ID: <90151.123059LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET>
Date: 31 May 90 16:30:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: QUCDN.90151.123059LEEK
References: <756@bilver.UUCP> <1990May27.101258.24470@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
 <321@tlvx.UUCP> <1990May29.204550.27961@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Lines: 26

From the articles in the ECC/Parity bit thread that I have been reading so far,
it seems to me that memory error is far less likely to be the cause of system
realibility concern...  The realibility of a system is only as good as the
weakest component.

  I have seen my machine crashing more often due to programming bugs and bad
programming.  How clean is the power source that we plug our trusty machine into
?   Can we trust the power company to deliver 100% regulated power free of power
surges and brown outs ?  (Answer is NO !!)  Can we trust the other appliances
in the building for not producing power surges ?  That's the reason why some
companies make a fortune selling UPS and power conditioner.

  How much do we trust our CPU to not to fail ?  Is there some hidden bugs in
the CPU or perpherial chips that would fail under some conditions ?

Intel got a few of these nasty bugs in their early batches of 386 CPUs
chips etc.. (I am sure things like this would pop up once in a while.) Some
companies insists on running parts outside their specified range.  This might
potentially cause problems when mixed with other out of spec designs.

The list of things that can go wrong can go on forever.  My point is that the
memory system is one of the less probable cause of system failure.  Given the
cost of ECC, it might be more worth while to spend that money to prevent other
more likely cause of failure...

K. C. Lee