Xref: utzoo comp.sys.next:17892 comp.arch:22849 Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,comp.arch Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: parity is for farmers? Message-ID: <1991May22.155818.20148@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 15:58:18 GMT References: <1991May21.232331.24888@cs.umn.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1991May21.232331.24888@cs.umn.edu> scott@poincare.geom.umn.edu (Scott S. Bertilson) writes: > Does anyone else get nervous about the fact that NeXT ships their machines >with 8 megabytes of non-parity memory? Apple does the same thing. >Is memory so reliable today that >parity doesn't give enough benefit to bother with? It's marginal, and depends on circumstances. Modern memory *is* pretty reliable, and it's attractive to the bean-counters to pinch pennies by removing parity circuitry. Doing parity requires 12.5% more memory, adds circuitry for checking and for testing the checker (not being able to test it, e.g. the IBM PC, is a mistake), can introduce problematic delays in fast machines, and can be a considerable headache when writing partial words to memory in some situations. On well-broken-in hardware, parity errors are quite rare. (Utzoo gets maybe one or two a year on 24MB of relatively old memory.) Of course, when a bit does go bad, you'd kind of like to know about it... >Does only ECC give a >strong enough guarantee - and that is too expensive... ECC is more painful in all the above ways, and tends to be used only for server-class machines where availability sells. In practice, with current error rates, unless the application is one where crashes are utterly unacceptable, parity is amply sufficient. It's nice to be able to repair the error, but relatively unimportant: most parity errors will not bring the system down if intelligently managed, and most systems crash more often than that for other reasons anyway. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry