Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Workstation Data Integrity
Message-ID: <2423@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 14 Aug 90 14:43:33 GMT
References: <1990Aug3.204358.330@portia.Stanford.EDU> <40694@mips.mips.COM> <2399@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1016@stca77.stc.oz>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 12

In article <1016@stca77.stc.oz> peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) writes:

| I run it with delayed parity (which means any parity error causes a PANIC)
| and haven't had any parity errors in 18 months operation.

  I concluded some time ago that with memory as reliable as it is, and
the cost of an undetected parity error as high as it could be, that
while a panic is not the *best* way to handle parity errors, it is more
acceptable than ignoring them.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
       "This is your PC. This is your PC on OS/2. Any questions?"