From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 15 16:02:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D031065678 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:02:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77BC8FC14 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id TAA29724; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:02:30 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <4C17A416.7030909@icyb.net.ua> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:02:30 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100517) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Masoom Shaikh References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: disable RAM parity error X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:02:34 -0000 on 15/06/2010 08:34 Masoom Shaikh said the following: > Hello List, > > In continuation to my earlier mail, I am now convinced(nearly) that > the freezes faced by me are "RAM parity error" indeed. > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org/msg70730.html > > when using internet via wpi0, FreeBSD freezes are very prone to occur > compared to when I am using bfe0. But they do occur, due to some > reason it feels stable when connected via bfe0. > Over course of time I have accumulated some core.txt. files, which > I have uploaded to pastebin and their links are below. My question is > why only FreeBSD minds about RAM parity error check, while latest > offering from Redmond does not ? > is there a way to IGNORE RAM parity check ? is it possible to get hold > of offending address from these core files ? > while I observe "stack pointer" and "frame pointer" have repeated > values in core files, I cannot conclude anything from this > observation. Anybody here care ? If I were you I'd be concerned with finding and replacing the flaky hardware instead of wasting time before disaster happens. As to why "other OS" doesn't report errors - it could have been the other way around, different OSes have different usage/load patterns and hit different hardware problems with higher probability. -- Andriy Gapon