From owner-freebsd-hardware  Sun Feb  2 10:57:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA01189
          for hardware-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:57:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.com (pegasus.com [140.174.243.13])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA01178
          for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pegasus.com (8.6.8/PEGASUS-2.2)
	id IAA17553; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:57:05 -1000
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:57:05 -1000
From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Message-Id: <199702021857.IAA17553@pegasus.com>
In-Reply-To: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert)
       "Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ?" (Feb  2,  4:18pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ?
Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

} > 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).
} -- 

The speed penalty when a bit fails without ECC is *much* greater.