From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Oct 26 17:58:31 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05531
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:58:31 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from server.local.sunyit.edu (A-T34.rh.sunyit.edu [150.156.210.241])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05525
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:58:26 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu)
Received: from localhost (perlsta@localhost)
	by server.local.sunyit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19845
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:03:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: server.local.sunyit.edu: perlsta owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:03:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu>
X-Sender: perlsta@server.local.sunyit.edu
To: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Parity Ram
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026173258.26745H-100000@misery.sdf.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971026220237.19711D-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Do you know anything of Richard Hamming's assertion that parity memory
> > (the old fashioned even/odd type) is-a-bad -thing in large
> > configurations?
> 
>   I think it bullshit.  I've never heard of this before.  Nor have you in
> the two times you've mentioned it, actually stated what is supposed to be
> so bad about it.

more bits means more chance of error even if they are "error-correcting"
bits?