Talk:Soft error

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The table at the bottom listing decade of error-correction method introduction is misleading re LDPC codes; while invented/discovered in the 1960s it was not until the 1990s and their rediscovery that technology caught up such that an LDPC system could actually be implemented. Also, LDPC codes and Turbo codes aren't used for soft error detection/correction in the sense that this article implies. I think the table could be removed entirely and nothing be lost from the article.

example of a 1 bit error in memory causing a segfault[edit]

maybe this would be a good reference. its a very detailed analysis of a segfault, that turned out to be a 1 bit error in the memory caching a binary file. -- (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

hard vs soft[edit]

Is there such a thing as a "hard" error? If so, it would be very natural to mention it, and contrast hard- and soft-errors. For example, the article on Software does something similar:

The term (Software) was coined to contrast to the old term hardware (meaning physical devices). In contrast to hardware, software is intangible,...

I think this would strengthen the article. Lavaka (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

radioactive material[edit]

This can't be right: "take a typical computer with a large memory capacity at least 10 years before the radioactive elements of the chip's materials begin to decay." Radioactive materials don't "begin" to decay; they undergo Exponential decay. Unfortunately I'm not sure what the correct statement is in the context. Is there an expert in the house? ALloydFlanagan (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice that; it's just plain wrong. Unfortunately I'm not an expert on memory hardware either. I've removed the problematic sentence. Lower down in the article things get more technical, and it's annoying to have something obviously wrong in the introduction. Wyvern (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)