Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site aum.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!qantel!ptsfa!aum!freed From: freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Asynchronous State machines Message-ID: <406@aum.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 11:37:42 EST Article-I.D.: aum.406 Posted: Thu Nov 21 11:37:42 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 07:24:07 EST References: <389@aum.UUCP> <6077@utzoo.UUCP>, <395@aum.UUCP> <6148@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch Lines: 29 Xref: watmath net.arch:2148 net.micro.68k:1361 > > ...Go lower and you are introducing possible flakiness. > > especially considering that Fairchild's data just might be self-serving... > > The data that my calculations are based on is experimental measurements > of metastability, not Fairchild spec sheets. The settling time of various families usually comes from a manufacturer. I just meant that I usually don't rely on a manufacturer to be on the pessimistic side of things as far as their product is concerned. > > I would also note that a one-in-40-years failure criterion -- which got > mentioned earlier in this discussion -- is almost certainly far too severe > to be justified. Most VLSI *chips* have shorter Mean Time Between Soft > Errors, especially the complex chips that have been pushed hard for speed. > (I'm talking about logic, not just memory, by the way.) > -- Once again show us your math. It is more rewarding to actually see what *you* consider to be your data rate and acceptable MTBF. Bear in mind that these figures are statistical and the failure *could* happen on the first cycle. Also the data rates mentioned seem very low for a high throughput vme cycle. After all, we are talking about *speed*. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed