Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Jerry Hicks <wghhicks@ix.netcom.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Parity Ram Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971025143452.23973C-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <34525F3B.1137B612@ix.netcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Jerry Hicks wrote: > Žoršur Ivarsson wrote: > > > > This has helped me several times when I was suspecting broken memory in > > the old days (90-93) :-) > > > > Thordur Ivarsson > > ECC Memory was marginally useful for this years ago when were using NMOS > RAM. Lately, most memory failures I've seen are catastrophic, taking out > a whole device or better. > > I'm not a hardware specialist; Does 'Parity RAM' employ a conventional > parity scheme, a la asynch serial communications? Most do, except for ECC schemes. > Didn't Richard Hamming show these to -cause- more problems than they > solve? It seems I recall a number like 256K (bits/bytes/words?) as being > the threshold in a proof he presented. Huh? I don't understand. How does it cause problems to determine that a memory location is corrupted? > Jerry Hicks > jerry_hicks@bigfoot.com > > Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.971025143452.23973C-100000>