From owner-freebsd-hardware Sun Feb 2 08:48:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA24929 for hardware-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexico.brainstorm.eu.org (root@mexico.brainstorm.fr [193.56.58.253]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA24919 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from brasil.brainstorm.eu.org (brasil.brainstorm.fr [193.56.58.33]) by mexico.brainstorm.eu.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA14924 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:47:52 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by brasil.brainstorm.eu.org (8.8.4/8.6.12) with UUCP id RAA26647 for freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:47:31 +0100 Received: (from roberto@localhost) by keltia.freenix.fr (8.8.5/keltia-uucp-2.9) id QAA28156; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:18:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <19970202161858.XX27267@keltia.freenix.fr> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:18:58 +0100 From: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert) To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ? References: <199701302113.WAA06565@cezanne.prism.uvsq.fr> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.59/1-2,4,7-8,10-14 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT ctm#2975 In-Reply-To: <199701302113.WAA06565@cezanne.prism.uvsq.fr>; from Pierre DAVID on Jan 30, 1997 22:13:56 +0100 Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk According to Pierre DAVID: > We are thinking about upgrading our old Sparc 10 server > to a P6 running FreeBSD. Yo ! > We are faced with the following dilemnna: either we choose > 64 MB of ECC memory (72 pins), or 128 MB of non ECC > memory (standard EDO) since prices are very near. One thing to consider is that you'll suffer a 10-15% speed penalty with ECC RAM. (number from some -hardware mails in the past). -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- The daemon is FREE! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 3.0-CURRENT #37: Mon Jan 27 23:21:10 CET 1997