From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 7 6: 2:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from p01mail03.midata.com (p01mail03.midata.com [207.250.225.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3D337B858 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 06:02:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Bob.Gorichanaz@midata.com) Received: from p51mail02.midata.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p01mail03.midata.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17251 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:02:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob.Gorichanaz@midata.com Subject: Re: bad memory patch? To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 07:46:24 -0500 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on DSGATE02/MICORPEX/US(Release 5.0.2a |November 23, 1999) at 04/07/2000 08:01:51 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Maybe I'm mis-understanding something, but isn't this situation analagous to bad sectors on a hard drive? Isn't this similar, at least in theory, to remapping dead sectors and continuing to use the drive? (except that the disk's onboard controller handles the mapping instead of the OS) Not trying to push this idea one way or the other, I'm just curious as to WHY so many people think this is a "bad idea" -=bob=- Warner Losh @FreeBSD.ORG on 04/06/2000 04:58:59 PM Sent by: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG To: J McKitrick cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bad memory patch? In message <20000406164114.B29984@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> J McKitrick writes: : Sounds like sometheing we could use, eh? I don't think so. Strikes me a a hugely *BAD* idea. If you have bad memory, replace it, don't work around it. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message