RS> BL> In a general sense, I never did see any point in parity. If a system
RS> BL> is so unreliable it needs 12.5% redundancy then 12.5% is not enough!
RS> BL> The minimum workable redundancy is 100% - or you may as well not
RS> bother.

RS> PE> It isn't redundancy, it's designed to see if an
RS> PE> error has occurred, ie the memory has been corrupted.

RS> BL> How does that work? If the other 8 chips handle one bit each,
RS> BL> then how does the one-bit in the parity chip keep track on 8?
RS> BL> I assumed that it had to work on averages... a false parity
RS> BL> meant it was likely one of the others had failed too.

RS> He's just doing more completely senile mindless coat trailing.

What a typically intelligent comment.

Regards, fIM.

 * * Love thy neighbour, but don't let her husband catch you
@EOT:

---