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












14















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
    yesterday






  • 3





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

    – RonJohn
    yesterday
















14















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
    yesterday






  • 3





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

    – RonJohn
    yesterday














14












14








14


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

9,549447141




9,549447141













  • 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
    yesterday






  • 3





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

    – RonJohn
    yesterday



















  • 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
    yesterday






  • 3





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

    – RonJohn
    yesterday

















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
yesterday





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
yesterday




3




3





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

– RonJohn
yesterday





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

– RonJohn
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















24
















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 - a policy that to some degree still results in higher food prices in the US than in most other countries.





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
    yesterday






  • 1





    @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
    yesterday



















7














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.




























    1














    The extra bits are used to allow for error detection and correction (EDAC).



    This scheme is described in detail in: Cray 1 Hardware Reference Manual at page 5-5 (~168)



    The use of EDAC in the Cray-1 is rather ironic given that Seymour Cray is (in)famous for once saying




    Parity is for farmers.




    Which I think is a reference to farm subsides in Europe.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

      – another-dave
      1 hour ago













    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

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    24
















    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 - a policy that to some degree still results in higher food prices in the US than in most other countries.





    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
      yesterday






    • 1





      @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
      yesterday
















    24
















    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 - a policy that to some degree still results in higher food prices in the US than in most other countries.





    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
      yesterday






    • 1





      @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
      yesterday














    24












    24








    24









    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 - a policy that to some degree still results in higher food prices in the US than in most other countries.





    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 - a policy that to some degree still results in higher food prices in the US than in most other countries.





    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

























    answered yesterday









    RaffzahnRaffzahn

    52.7k6124213




    52.7k6124213








    • 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
      yesterday






    • 1





      @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
      yesterday














    • 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
      yesterday






    • 1





      @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
      yesterday








    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
    yesterday





    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
    yesterday




    1




    1





    @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
    yesterday





    @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
    yesterday











    7














    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.

























      7














      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.























        7












        7








        7







        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 yesterday









        ttwttw

        1712




        1712




        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.























            1














            The extra bits are used to allow for error detection and correction (EDAC).



            This scheme is described in detail in: Cray 1 Hardware Reference Manual at page 5-5 (~168)



            The use of EDAC in the Cray-1 is rather ironic given that Seymour Cray is (in)famous for once saying




            Parity is for farmers.




            Which I think is a reference to farm subsides in Europe.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

              – another-dave
              1 hour ago


















            1














            The extra bits are used to allow for error detection and correction (EDAC).



            This scheme is described in detail in: Cray 1 Hardware Reference Manual at page 5-5 (~168)



            The use of EDAC in the Cray-1 is rather ironic given that Seymour Cray is (in)famous for once saying




            Parity is for farmers.




            Which I think is a reference to farm subsides in Europe.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

              – another-dave
              1 hour ago
















            1












            1








            1







            The extra bits are used to allow for error detection and correction (EDAC).



            This scheme is described in detail in: Cray 1 Hardware Reference Manual at page 5-5 (~168)



            The use of EDAC in the Cray-1 is rather ironic given that Seymour Cray is (in)famous for once saying




            Parity is for farmers.




            Which I think is a reference to farm subsides in Europe.






            share|improve this answer













            The extra bits are used to allow for error detection and correction (EDAC).



            This scheme is described in detail in: Cray 1 Hardware Reference Manual at page 5-5 (~168)



            The use of EDAC in the Cray-1 is rather ironic given that Seymour Cray is (in)famous for once saying




            Parity is for farmers.




            Which I think is a reference to farm subsides in Europe.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            Peter CamilleriPeter Camilleri

            78439




            78439








            • 1





              "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

              – another-dave
              1 hour ago
















            • 1





              "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

              – another-dave
              1 hour ago










            1




            1





            "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

            – another-dave
            1 hour ago







            "Farm income parity"' was a policy in 20th century US agriculture, probably topical in the 60s and 70s, so I suppose Cray was referring to that,

            – another-dave
            1 hour ago




















            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

            How to label and detect the document text images

            Vallis Paradisi

            Tabula Rosettana