From owner-freebsd-hardware Thu Dec 21 10:56:38 1995 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA26597 for hardware-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.id.net (root@server.id.net [199.125.1.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA26581 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rls@localhost) by server.id.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) id NAA22225; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:58:13 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Shady Message-Id: <199512211858.NAA22225@server.id.net> Subject: Re: SIMMs: Parity vs. EDO ? To: owensc@enc.edu (Charles Owens) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:58:12 -0500 (EST) Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Charles Owens" at Dec 21, 95 09:54:04 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > When I check out the various RAM distributors, I can't seem to find EDO > simms that also support parity! Why is this? EDO doesn't make parity a > moot point, does it? > > How much of a performance boost does EDO provide, anyways? I'm putting > together some servers where stability is a must, but extra performance > is always nice. Very few (if any) of the new servers require (or use) the parity bit on the simms. This has pretty much been the case since 486's came out, and definately since the pentiums arrived. -- Rob