Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT Memory - No Error Checking or Parity !
Keywords: Memory,errors,parity
Message-ID: <3569@phri.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 88 03:14:30 GMT
References: <549@gt-eedsp.UUCP>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 17

jensen@gt-eedsp.UUCP (P. Allen Jensen) writes:
> The reason was that "memory is reliable enough that the added cost was not
> justified." [...]  Could an expert on RAM chips respond ?   Is memory
> really "reliable enough" ?

	I'm hardly an expert on ram, but here goes anyway.  We've got 19
Sun-3's of various flavors around here with a total of 84 Mbytes of ram.
We get a parity error panic on one machine or another a couple of times a
year.  Make that, oh maybe, 1 error per 400 Mbyte-months.  In perhaps 2000
Mbyte-months of operation, we've had one hard memory error.

	That's my data.  Draw your own conclusions.
-- 
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"