From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 28 17:21:12 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07228
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:21:12 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from ocean.campus.luth.se (ocean.campus.luth.se [130.240.194.116])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07211
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:21:02 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se)
Received: (from karpen@localhost)
	by ocean.campus.luth.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA07569;
	Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:28:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Message-Id: <199710290128.CAA07569@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Parity Ram
In-Reply-To: <199710270948.BAA24643@implode.root.com> from David Greenman at "Oct 27, 97 01:48:47 am"
To: dg@root.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:28:30 +0100 (CET)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


[...Discussion on ECC/parity/no-parity memory...]

I seem to recall something about partiy and/or ECC memory having slower
access rates, or something, and therefor being a bad thing preformace-wise
but a good thing safety-wise?

I don't know where I got this, but could anyone with knowledge in the
subject maybe enlighten me on the amount of truth behind this?

  /Mikael