Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:09:19 --100 | From | (Karl Keyte) | Subject | Re: memtest86, built into kernel |
| |
> > > > Given that it happens so rarely, that parity is only 50% likely to > > catch the error anyway, and that parity requires an extra 12.5% DRAM, > > it doesn't seem worth it to me. ECC is more useful, since it will > > correct single-bit errors rather than just hanging. > > > > -Matt
No, surely the parity is virtually 100% certain to catch the error...?? The only way it wouldn't is for more than the one bit to be in error in such a way that the parity becomes valid again. If bit errors are so rare, it's an unlikely situation, so the parity bits should be a good test. However, it's so rare, and parity bits themselves can be subject to error, I wouldn't bother with it. They don't either!
Karl
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |