Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bu.edu!bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!jjmhome!m2c!umvlsi!dime!ccs1.cs.umass.edu!shri
From: shri@ccs1.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in})
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Time between memory failure
Keywords: parity, memory, failure
Message-ID: <9975@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 22:29:00 GMT
References: <1911@sunquest.UUCP>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: shri@ccs1.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in})
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 21

In article <1911@sunquest.UUCP> terry@sunquest.UUCP (Terry) responds to:

><3938@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, davidb@braa.inmos.co.uk (David Boreham)
>> No personal computer or workstation built nowadays needs parity or EDC.
>
>Now wait.  I've seen a couple of instances of memory parity errors on
>fairly new PCs.  Are you really trying to say that I'd be better off

   Just to comment that in the memory design,the tightest timing path is
the parity checker/generator. And with so much pressure to tighten
the memory timing, this path "might" be underdesigned.

  One of the PC's back home gives a RAM ERROR if the room gets a bit
hotter that usual... I think the DRAMs are fine, `cos the same DRAMs work
well with other PC's; but rather the parity checker timing is
marginal and acts up if the mercury creeps up a few degrees.

  If only I could disable the parity check when I am playing games on
a warm day :-)

-- shrikumar ( shri@ccs1.cs.umass.edu, shri@ncst.in )