Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu!daveg From: daveg@near.cs.caltech.edu (Dave Gillespie) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Workstation Data Integrity Message-ID: Date: 8 Sep 90 06:32:06 GMT References: <6797.26d6edce@vax1.tcd.ie> <56qmo1w162w@zl2tnm.gp.govt.nz> <19875@crg5.UUCP> <19208@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1990Sep6.141040.3244@mozart.amd.com> <2496@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Sep8.014608.27533@mozart.amd.com> Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: davec@neutron.amd.com's message of 8 Sep 90 01:46:08 GMT >>>>> On 8 Sep 90 01:46:08 GMT, davec@neutron.amd.com (Dave Christie) said: > The eighth bit gives you double error detection... > ... if it's only one more bit on top of 71, what the hell... I wonder, I can see single-bit errors occurring in isolation, but how likely is it to have an exactly two-bit error? Most catastrophes I can think of will nuke one bit or many. And if the only danger is two statistically independent errors occuring at once in the same word, I think a more pressing danger is that your machine might be the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast in a clever disguise. -- Dave -- Dave Gillespie 256-80 Caltech Pasadena CA USA 91125 daveg@csvax.cs.caltech.edu, ...!cit-vax!daveg