lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: memtest86, built into kernel
On 23 Apr 96 at 17:09, Karl Keyte wrote:

> > >
> > > 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!

The probability that a reported parity error is due to a error in the
parity bit is 1/9. Parity errors are rather rare; thus that type of
error is even more unlikely.


>
> Karl
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.021 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site