Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!unixland!achilles
From: achilles@unixland.uucp (David Holland)
Subject: Re: Memory Parity. Is It Really Needed
Message-ID: <2oo2Z1w163w@unixland.uucp>
Sender: bbs@unixland.uucp (Waffle BBS)
Organization: The Think_Tank BBS & Public-Access Unix
References: <6040014@hpspkla.spk.hp.com>
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 91 13:49:24 EDT

town@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Brian R. Town) writes:

> Yes you lost important data, but only what you were working on at the time.  
> would guess that the parity error kept your application from writing the
> corrupt information to disk, didn't it??  The 'important data' that you were
> saved from loosing is the data on the disk that the parity checking kept the 
> program from trashing.  Just consider what shape any data files that your
> program writes would have been in if you would have used the program for a fe
> days without knowing that there was a problem.
> 
> Brian

 
 However, wouldn't the memory test that your computer does when you turn it 
on or do a "cold" reboot detect memory failures? If so, adding an extra chip 
for parity not only wastes silicon, board space, money, power, and 
everything else, but also DECREASES reliability - if the chance of any 
particular memory chip failing is 1/10,000, the chance of any one of your 
memory chips failing is 8/10,000 without parity, or 9/10,000 with... 
 
 ------------
 David A. Holland
 
 pro-angmar!achilles@alfalfa.com ... alphalpha!pro-angmar!achilles
 
 CAD/CAM: Computer Aided Disaster/Computer Assisted Mayhem :-)