From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May  5 16:36:47 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA27851
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 16:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pahtoh.cwu.edu (root@pahtoh.cwu.edu [198.104.65.27])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA27843
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 5 May 1997 16:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opus.cts.cwu.edu (skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu [198.104.92.71])
	by pahtoh.cwu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA11656;
	Mon, 5 May 1997 16:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (skynyrd@localhost)
	by opus.cts.cwu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10467;
	Mon, 5 May 1997 16:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 16:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Timmons <skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu>
Reply-To: Chris Timmons <skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu>
To: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
cc: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@korin.warman.org.pl>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SMP hardware recommendations
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.94.970505160445.29377E-100000@misery.sdf.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970505161634.12683I-100000@opus.cts.cwu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


>   You must mean very low density.  If they were high density parts, there
> would be less chips.

I abused the terminology there.  I was thinking how "densely packed"  the
chips appeared to be on the module, whereas the bit-density is
comparatively low versus modules of the same capacity implemented with
fewer chips as you point out.  Thanks for setting me straight!

>   Personally, I find SIMMs with high chip counts to be highly suspect.

I am arriving at the same conclusion :(

-Chris