H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:

When last I looked at Hamming code, and that would be 1989 or 1990, I believe that I learned that the number of Hamming bits needed to cover N data bits was 1+log2(N), which for 512 bytes would be 1+12, and fit into a 16 bit field nicely. I don't know that I would go that way, fix any one bit error, detect any two bit error, rather than a CRC which gives me only one chance in 64k of an undetected data error, but I find it interesting.


A Hamming code across the bytes of a sector is pretty darn pointless, since that's not a typical failure pattern.
I just thought it was perhaps one of those little known facts that meaningful ECC could fit in 16 bits. I mentioned that I wouldn't go that way, mainly because it would be less effective catching multibit errors. This was a "fun fact" for all those folks who missed Hamming codes in their education, because they are old tech.

--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to