*BSD News Article 56157


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.n2.net!not-for-mail
From: dsmith@n2.net (Dave Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Parity SIMMS really necessary?
Date: 6 Dec 1995 08:27:19 GMT
Organization: N2 Networking
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4a3k57$2sk@news.n2.net>
References: <49lbnr$4fq@interport.net> <49qabp$efi@zuul.nmti.com> <49spbi$1m8@sixpack.wustl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ravel.n2.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]

Matt Lundberg (ml@sixpack.wustl.edu) wrote:
: In article <49qabp$efi@zuul.nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote:

: As for using non-parity SIMMS, what does that extra bit give you
: anyway?  I agree that ECC is an advantage, but parity will only 
: inform you that you have a memory error, in most cases by locking
: up the machine.  This is no help.
: -- 
: Matt Lundberg			ml@sixpack.wustl.edu

Matt,

If I have 7 GB of disk on a machine and I have memory errors, I don't
want it to start writing flawed memory images of disk directories on
my disks that will take me a week to reconstruct.  I would prefer a 
halt.  

The ultimate would be ECC and a log of errors created by the software.

---------------------------------
Dave Smith	    dsmith@n2.net
---------------------------------