From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 17 19:16:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA16379 for current-outgoing; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GndRsh.aac.dev.com (GndRsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA16273; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by GndRsh.aac.dev.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA01319; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:15:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199609180215.TAA01319@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> Subject: Re: RAM parity error In-Reply-To: <199609180137.SAA09571@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Sep 17, 96 06:37:45 pm" To: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi Asami) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Is there any reason why the above would happen when it is NOT the > hardware that's broken? I've seen it on a couple of P6 boxes around > here, with or without ccd, when I try to push a lot of stuff through > the SCSI system (like parallel iozone's on multiple non-ccd > filesystems). > > I'd send you the dmesg output if it's not all disks. I believe this > machine has the Intel Natoma chipset with 32MB of parity RAM (9 chips, > the middle one is bigger than others, is this the "logic parity" > thing?).... If you have ``logic parity'' instead of true parity you have defeated 75 % of the purpose of even having parity on memory. I would highly encorage you to try a swapout with some ``real parity'' memory and more than likely watch your problem go away... -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD