Re: memtest86, built into kernel

Karl Keyte (kkeyte@esoc.esa.de)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:09:19 --100

> >
> > 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