Why did the Cray-1 have 8 parity bits per word?How did Mode 3 on the Amstrad CPC work?What computer first...

Why can't we use freedom of speech and expression to incite people to rebel against government?

Has a sovereign Communist government ever run, and conceded loss, on a fair election?

Script that counts quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies

Called into a meeting and told we are being made redundant (laid off) and "not to share outside". Can I tell my partner?

Can an earth elemental drown/bury its opponent underground using earth glide?

What kind of inflection is occuring in passive vb + かかった?

How do we objectively assess if a dialogue sounds unnatural or cringy?

How to concatenate two command in shell

How will Occam's Razor principle work in Machine learning

Why would the IRS ask for birth certificates or even audit a small tax return?

Difference between 'stomach' and 'uterus'

Find maximum of the output from reduce

How spaceships determine each other mass in space?

Are Wave equations equivalent to Maxwell equations?

Why doesn't "adolescent" take any articles in "listen to adolescent agonising"?

How to develop an internal intuition for note timings?

How can I be pwned if I'm not registered on the compromised site?

How to set path in STY file as relative to this file path

I encountered my boss during an on-site interview at another company. Should I bring it up when seeing him next time?

Was it really inappropriate to write a pull request for the company I interviewed with?

Book about a time-travel war fought by computers

What can I do if someone tampers with my SSH public key?

I can't die. Who am I?

GPL code private and stolen



Why did the Cray-1 have 8 parity bits per word?


How did Mode 3 on the Amstrad CPC work?What computer first facilitated multi-precision arithmetic80s DRAM chips: one per bit of data bus width?Z80 and video chip contending for random accessWere there any LSI-11 like home computers outside of Russia?Repurposing the parity bitLast computer not to use octets / 8-bit bytesRAM for Socket 7 Motherboard - 64MB sticks appearing as 16MBAmiga floppy disks and GCR vs MFMWhy are RAM chips 1 or 4 bits wide?













13















According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1




The Cray-1 was built as a 64-bit system, a departure from the 7600/6600, which were 60-bit machines (a change was also planned for the 8600). Addressing was 24-bit, with a maximum of 1,048,576 64-bit words (1 megaword) of main memory, where each word also had 8 parity bits for a total of 72 bits per word.[10] There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?










share|improve this question























  • Every parity bit you add halves the error rate. Hence 8 bits divide it by 256. (Though as error correction was used as well, the improvement is not so good.)

    – Yves Daoust
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    8/64 = 1/8. Guess how many parity bits modern computers use for parity on bytes??

    – RonJohn
    15 hours ago
















13















According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1




The Cray-1 was built as a 64-bit system, a departure from the 7600/6600, which were 60-bit machines (a change was also planned for the 8600). Addressing was 24-bit, with a maximum of 1,048,576 64-bit words (1 megaword) of main memory, where each word also had 8 parity bits for a total of 72 bits per word.[10] There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?










share|improve this question























  • Every parity bit you add halves the error rate. Hence 8 bits divide it by 256. (Though as error correction was used as well, the improvement is not so good.)

    – Yves Daoust
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    8/64 = 1/8. Guess how many parity bits modern computers use for parity on bytes??

    – RonJohn
    15 hours ago














13












13








13


1






According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1




The Cray-1 was built as a 64-bit system, a departure from the 7600/6600, which were 60-bit machines (a change was also planned for the 8600). Addressing was 24-bit, with a maximum of 1,048,576 64-bit words (1 megaword) of main memory, where each word also had 8 parity bits for a total of 72 bits per word.[10] There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?










share|improve this question














According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1




The Cray-1 was built as a 64-bit system, a departure from the 7600/6600, which were 60-bit machines (a change was also planned for the 8600). Addressing was 24-bit, with a maximum of 1,048,576 64-bit words (1 megaword) of main memory, where each word also had 8 parity bits for a total of 72 bits per word.[10] There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?







hardware memory cray






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked yesterday









rwallacerwallace

9,539447141




9,539447141













  • Every parity bit you add halves the error rate. Hence 8 bits divide it by 256. (Though as error correction was used as well, the improvement is not so good.)

    – Yves Daoust
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    8/64 = 1/8. Guess how many parity bits modern computers use for parity on bytes??

    – RonJohn
    15 hours ago



















  • Every parity bit you add halves the error rate. Hence 8 bits divide it by 256. (Though as error correction was used as well, the improvement is not so good.)

    – Yves Daoust
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    8/64 = 1/8. Guess how many parity bits modern computers use for parity on bytes??

    – RonJohn
    15 hours ago

















Every parity bit you add halves the error rate. Hence 8 bits divide it by 256. (Though as error correction was used as well, the improvement is not so good.)

– Yves Daoust
18 hours ago





Every parity bit you add halves the error rate. Hence 8 bits divide it by 256. (Though as error correction was used as well, the improvement is not so good.)

– Yves Daoust
18 hours ago




3




3





8/64 = 1/8. Guess how many parity bits modern computers use for parity on bytes??

– RonJohn
15 hours ago





8/64 = 1/8. Guess how many parity bits modern computers use for parity on bytes??

– RonJohn
15 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















21
















There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. [...]




What you refer to here is a simple single bit parity. Basically counting the number of ones (even parity) or zeros (odd). Such a mechanism can only detect an odd number of bit flips (1 or 3 or 5 or ... flipping). Even numbers of flips can't be detected and will result in undetected computing errors.



What the Cray uses is a parity system based on Hamming encoding. Encoding parity this way allows detection of multiple bit errors within a word and even correction of these on the fly. The 8-bit code used was able to correct single bit errors (SEC) and detect double error (DED).



So while a machine with a single bit parity can detect single bit flips, it will always fail on double flips. Further, even if an error is detected, the only solution is to halt the program. With SEC-DED, a single error detected will be recovered (final) on the fly (at cost of maybe a few cycles) and a multi-bit error will halt the machine.




I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?




Because it's still just 1/8th, but now with improved flavour :))



Considering the quite important function of invisible error correction, the question is rather why only 8. Longer codes would allow to detect even longer errors and multi-bit corrections. With the 1 Ki by 1 RAMs used (Fairchild 10415FC), any width could have been made. Then again, while the Cray 1 architecture shows a switch to the 'new' standard of 8 bit units - so using 8 parity bits comes naturally. Doesn't it?





Remark#1



Eventually it's the same development the PC took, just instead of going from 9 bit memory (SIMM) over 36 bit (PS/2) to today's 72 Bit DIMM, the Cray-1 leapfrogged all of this and started with 72 Bit right away.





Remark#2



Seymour Cray is known to have said that 'Parity is for Farmers' when designing the 6600. While this quote was famous in inspiring the reply 'Farmers buy Computers' when parity got introduced with the 7600, not may know what he was referring to on an implied level: The Doctrine of Parity, a US policy to make farming profitable again during and after the great depression.





Remark#3



The Cray Y-MP of 1990 even went a step further and added parity to (most) registers. Also the code was changed to enable double-bit correction and multi-bit detection.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

    – alephzero
    23 hours ago











  • @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

    – supercat
    16 hours ago



















2














After the first Cray-1 was built, some calculation determined that the time between failures would be greatly extended by having a single-error-correction-double-error-detection (SECDED) without much cost in speed. The point is that with large memory, random single bit errors occur every few hours; with SECDED, it's every few years or so.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "648"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9318%2fwhy-did-the-cray-1-have-8-parity-bits-per-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    21
















    There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




    It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. [...]




    What you refer to here is a simple single bit parity. Basically counting the number of ones (even parity) or zeros (odd). Such a mechanism can only detect an odd number of bit flips (1 or 3 or 5 or ... flipping). Even numbers of flips can't be detected and will result in undetected computing errors.



    What the Cray uses is a parity system based on Hamming encoding. Encoding parity this way allows detection of multiple bit errors within a word and even correction of these on the fly. The 8-bit code used was able to correct single bit errors (SEC) and detect double error (DED).



    So while a machine with a single bit parity can detect single bit flips, it will always fail on double flips. Further, even if an error is detected, the only solution is to halt the program. With SEC-DED, a single error detected will be recovered (final) on the fly (at cost of maybe a few cycles) and a multi-bit error will halt the machine.




    I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?




    Because it's still just 1/8th, but now with improved flavour :))



    Considering the quite important function of invisible error correction, the question is rather why only 8. Longer codes would allow to detect even longer errors and multi-bit corrections. With the 1 Ki by 1 RAMs used (Fairchild 10415FC), any width could have been made. Then again, while the Cray 1 architecture shows a switch to the 'new' standard of 8 bit units - so using 8 parity bits comes naturally. Doesn't it?





    Remark#1



    Eventually it's the same development the PC took, just instead of going from 9 bit memory (SIMM) over 36 bit (PS/2) to today's 72 Bit DIMM, the Cray-1 leapfrogged all of this and started with 72 Bit right away.





    Remark#2



    Seymour Cray is known to have said that 'Parity is for Farmers' when designing the 6600. While this quote was famous in inspiring the reply 'Farmers buy Computers' when parity got introduced with the 7600, not may know what he was referring to on an implied level: The Doctrine of Parity, a US policy to make farming profitable again during and after the great depression.





    Remark#3



    The Cray Y-MP of 1990 even went a step further and added parity to (most) registers. Also the code was changed to enable double-bit correction and multi-bit detection.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

      – alephzero
      23 hours ago











    • @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

      – supercat
      16 hours ago
















    21
















    There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




    It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. [...]




    What you refer to here is a simple single bit parity. Basically counting the number of ones (even parity) or zeros (odd). Such a mechanism can only detect an odd number of bit flips (1 or 3 or 5 or ... flipping). Even numbers of flips can't be detected and will result in undetected computing errors.



    What the Cray uses is a parity system based on Hamming encoding. Encoding parity this way allows detection of multiple bit errors within a word and even correction of these on the fly. The 8-bit code used was able to correct single bit errors (SEC) and detect double error (DED).



    So while a machine with a single bit parity can detect single bit flips, it will always fail on double flips. Further, even if an error is detected, the only solution is to halt the program. With SEC-DED, a single error detected will be recovered (final) on the fly (at cost of maybe a few cycles) and a multi-bit error will halt the machine.




    I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?




    Because it's still just 1/8th, but now with improved flavour :))



    Considering the quite important function of invisible error correction, the question is rather why only 8. Longer codes would allow to detect even longer errors and multi-bit corrections. With the 1 Ki by 1 RAMs used (Fairchild 10415FC), any width could have been made. Then again, while the Cray 1 architecture shows a switch to the 'new' standard of 8 bit units - so using 8 parity bits comes naturally. Doesn't it?





    Remark#1



    Eventually it's the same development the PC took, just instead of going from 9 bit memory (SIMM) over 36 bit (PS/2) to today's 72 Bit DIMM, the Cray-1 leapfrogged all of this and started with 72 Bit right away.





    Remark#2



    Seymour Cray is known to have said that 'Parity is for Farmers' when designing the 6600. While this quote was famous in inspiring the reply 'Farmers buy Computers' when parity got introduced with the 7600, not may know what he was referring to on an implied level: The Doctrine of Parity, a US policy to make farming profitable again during and after the great depression.





    Remark#3



    The Cray Y-MP of 1990 even went a step further and added parity to (most) registers. Also the code was changed to enable double-bit correction and multi-bit detection.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

      – alephzero
      23 hours ago











    • @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

      – supercat
      16 hours ago














    21












    21








    21









    There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




    It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. [...]




    What you refer to here is a simple single bit parity. Basically counting the number of ones (even parity) or zeros (odd). Such a mechanism can only detect an odd number of bit flips (1 or 3 or 5 or ... flipping). Even numbers of flips can't be detected and will result in undetected computing errors.



    What the Cray uses is a parity system based on Hamming encoding. Encoding parity this way allows detection of multiple bit errors within a word and even correction of these on the fly. The 8-bit code used was able to correct single bit errors (SEC) and detect double error (DED).



    So while a machine with a single bit parity can detect single bit flips, it will always fail on double flips. Further, even if an error is detected, the only solution is to halt the program. With SEC-DED, a single error detected will be recovered (final) on the fly (at cost of maybe a few cycles) and a multi-bit error will halt the machine.




    I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?




    Because it's still just 1/8th, but now with improved flavour :))



    Considering the quite important function of invisible error correction, the question is rather why only 8. Longer codes would allow to detect even longer errors and multi-bit corrections. With the 1 Ki by 1 RAMs used (Fairchild 10415FC), any width could have been made. Then again, while the Cray 1 architecture shows a switch to the 'new' standard of 8 bit units - so using 8 parity bits comes naturally. Doesn't it?





    Remark#1



    Eventually it's the same development the PC took, just instead of going from 9 bit memory (SIMM) over 36 bit (PS/2) to today's 72 Bit DIMM, the Cray-1 leapfrogged all of this and started with 72 Bit right away.





    Remark#2



    Seymour Cray is known to have said that 'Parity is for Farmers' when designing the 6600. While this quote was famous in inspiring the reply 'Farmers buy Computers' when parity got introduced with the 7600, not may know what he was referring to on an implied level: The Doctrine of Parity, a US policy to make farming profitable again during and after the great depression.





    Remark#3



    The Cray Y-MP of 1990 even went a step further and added parity to (most) registers. Also the code was changed to enable double-bit correction and multi-bit detection.






    share|improve this answer

















    There were 64 data bits and 8 check bits.




    It seems to me by the nature of parity, it should suffice to have one bit of overhead per word, rather than eight. [...]




    What you refer to here is a simple single bit parity. Basically counting the number of ones (even parity) or zeros (odd). Such a mechanism can only detect an odd number of bit flips (1 or 3 or 5 or ... flipping). Even numbers of flips can't be detected and will result in undetected computing errors.



    What the Cray uses is a parity system based on Hamming encoding. Encoding parity this way allows detection of multiple bit errors within a word and even correction of these on the fly. The 8-bit code used was able to correct single bit errors (SEC) and detect double error (DED).



    So while a machine with a single bit parity can detect single bit flips, it will always fail on double flips. Further, even if an error is detected, the only solution is to halt the program. With SEC-DED, a single error detected will be recovered (final) on the fly (at cost of maybe a few cycles) and a multi-bit error will halt the machine.




    I can understand on something like an 8088/87, you might be stuck with 1/8 because the memory system deals in eight bits at a time, but why is it that way on a 64-bit machine?




    Because it's still just 1/8th, but now with improved flavour :))



    Considering the quite important function of invisible error correction, the question is rather why only 8. Longer codes would allow to detect even longer errors and multi-bit corrections. With the 1 Ki by 1 RAMs used (Fairchild 10415FC), any width could have been made. Then again, while the Cray 1 architecture shows a switch to the 'new' standard of 8 bit units - so using 8 parity bits comes naturally. Doesn't it?





    Remark#1



    Eventually it's the same development the PC took, just instead of going from 9 bit memory (SIMM) over 36 bit (PS/2) to today's 72 Bit DIMM, the Cray-1 leapfrogged all of this and started with 72 Bit right away.





    Remark#2



    Seymour Cray is known to have said that 'Parity is for Farmers' when designing the 6600. While this quote was famous in inspiring the reply 'Farmers buy Computers' when parity got introduced with the 7600, not may know what he was referring to on an implied level: The Doctrine of Parity, a US policy to make farming profitable again during and after the great depression.





    Remark#3



    The Cray Y-MP of 1990 even went a step further and added parity to (most) registers. Also the code was changed to enable double-bit correction and multi-bit detection.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 4 hours ago









    wizzwizz4

    8,689641109




    8,689641109










    answered yesterday









    RaffzahnRaffzahn

    52.6k6124213




    52.6k6124213








    • 3





      Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

      – alephzero
      23 hours ago











    • @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

      – supercat
      16 hours ago














    • 3





      Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

      – alephzero
      23 hours ago











    • @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

      – supercat
      16 hours ago








    3




    3





    Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

    – alephzero
    23 hours ago





    Cray certainly resisted parity and error checking hardware in the Cray-1, because it was a performance hit. AFAIK one (the first production?) Cray-1 was built without parity and delivered to a US government agency (can't remember exactly where), and it did have better benchmarked performance than any of the later production machines.

    – alephzero
    23 hours ago













    @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

    – supercat
    16 hours ago





    @alephzero: Would parity have required a performance hit if its sole function was to sound an alarm in case of parity fault to notify the user that the output from the current job should not be trusted, as opposed to trying to prevent erroneous computations? Even if parity-validation logic wouldn't be able to indicate whether a fetch had received valid data until long after the data had already been used, it could still provide an extremely valuable pass-fail indication of whether the output from a job should be trusted.

    – supercat
    16 hours ago











    2














    After the first Cray-1 was built, some calculation determined that the time between failures would be greatly extended by having a single-error-correction-double-error-detection (SECDED) without much cost in speed. The point is that with large memory, random single bit errors occur every few hours; with SECDED, it's every few years or so.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      2














      After the first Cray-1 was built, some calculation determined that the time between failures would be greatly extended by having a single-error-correction-double-error-detection (SECDED) without much cost in speed. The point is that with large memory, random single bit errors occur every few hours; with SECDED, it's every few years or so.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.























        2












        2








        2







        After the first Cray-1 was built, some calculation determined that the time between failures would be greatly extended by having a single-error-correction-double-error-detection (SECDED) without much cost in speed. The point is that with large memory, random single bit errors occur every few hours; with SECDED, it's every few years or so.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        After the first Cray-1 was built, some calculation determined that the time between failures would be greatly extended by having a single-error-correction-double-error-detection (SECDED) without much cost in speed. The point is that with large memory, random single bit errors occur every few hours; with SECDED, it's every few years or so.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 16 hours ago









        ttwttw

        1212




        1212




        New contributor




        ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        ttw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9318%2fwhy-did-the-cray-1-have-8-parity-bits-per-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Installing LyX: “No textclass is found.”LyX installation error- text class not found- 'Reconfigure' or...

            (1602) Indiana Índice Designación y nombre Características orbitales Véase...

            Universidad Autónoma de Occidente Índice Historia Campus Facultades Programas Académicos Medios de...