Talk:Triple modular redundancy

Untitled

I miss-spelt triple (Tripple). Ooops. Can some one fix this & links? (I dont know how). Also, article really needs a diagram. --- Aboeing

"What I tell you three times is true." -- Lewis Carroll this quote doesn't seem to fit right... the rest of the page quotes examples where two ouf of three is right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.183.180.34 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the examples in the popular culture section are not appropriate (ie they don't correspond to TMR). Removing the ones I dislike most. CeriReid 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

hardware vs software

A recent edit changed "... faster than Hamming error correction hardware" to "... faster than Hamming error correction software" with the comment "Hamming code is software not hardware".

The ECC memory article seems to imply (with its discussion of "ECC circuits") that Hsiao and Hamming error correction actually is in hardware, not software, but doesn't really comment on their speed compared to TMR.

Alas, the citation used to support the original sentence is apparently now offline. Can we get some other reliable source to explicitly support that sentence? --DavidCary (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

2014 isn't exactly recent!! I think it is self-evident that software implemented Hamming is going to be slower than hardware TME. It will be slower even than hardware Hamming. Hamming is a relatively simple system and it is unlikely that a software solution would be chosen over hardware. Ref 5 says that the much more sophisticated Reed-Solomon system is done in a NASA VLSI chip, although it can also be done in software. I'm inclined to change it back and assume that is what the source says. The editor who changed it simply asserted the fact without providing a new source. The edit summary asserts that Hamming code is software. This is misguided, Hamming code is neither hardware not software, it is a code. SpinningSpark 21:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)