Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Workstation Data Integrity
Message-ID: <2434@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 20 Aug 90 14:11:37 GMT
References: <1990Aug3.204358.330@portia.Stanford.EDU> <40694@mips.mips.COM> <2399@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Aug10.171744.9639@zoo.toronto.edu> <2421@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Aug18.210132.25203@sco.COM>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 18

In article <1990Aug18.210132.25203@sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes:

| The two times I've gotten parity errors (that didn't clear up on a reboot),
| the chip I've had to replace was the parity chip.

  Yes, and I got called for jury duty for the tenth time last month.
Isn't it wonderful how unlikely bad things happen so much more often
than unlikely good things? If I could get stuck in an elevator with
a beautiful woman as often as I get behind someone in the "cash only"
checkout who is try to pay with an out of state thrid party check, I'd
be content.

  In spite of all that, I'd rather have parity checking, because I have
had real genuine errors in the data memory, and I want to know about it
when it happens.
-- 
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?"