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 ---------------------------------