Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:18:24 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Parity Ram Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026191705.26941E-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971026230957.19711F-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > more bits means more chance of error even if they are "error-correcting" > > > bits? > > > > And how is that bad? Even simple parity systems will catch 100% of all > > single bit errors, regardless of where the bit appears. > > > > More bits mean more redundancy. That means it gets safer, not riskier. > > ok, 9 to 8 is a 1.125 difference in the ratio? > i think, what he means is that with a large amount of memory you just have > more bits that can go bad... All the more reason to use parity. > i'm not really sure though, just playing devil's advocate... > > you still have the same amount of protection, just more risk. The same goes for everything. If the MTBF of one item is X, the MTBF of N such items is X/N. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.971026191705.26941E-100000>