Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:38:35 +0200 From: "M.Hirsch" <webmaster@hirsch.it> To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.x CVSUP today crashes with zero load ... Message-ID: <44A06FFB.40104@hirsch.it> In-Reply-To: <20060627020819.L3403@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <E1FuYsL-000HT3-H2@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> <20060626100949.G24406@fledge.watson.org> <20060626081029.L1114@ganymede.hub.org> <20060626140333.M38418@fledge.watson.org> <20060626235355.Q95667@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <44A04FD2.1030001@hirsch.it> <20060627011512.N95667@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <44A06233.1090704@hirsch.it> <20060627014335.E87535@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <44A068A7.3090403@hirsch.it> <20060627020819.L3403@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, the result may be correct. 'Do not take "ECC" for "equals additional security"' So I understand what's ECC good for, other than the usual "marketing talk". But, in FreeBSD, the function is a result of hardware-level correction. Something that only kicks in in _real_ _serious_ situations. I just would like you (not specifically you, Dmitry) to aknowledge that broken RAM is worth a "panic" in "standard situations"- if I may call it like that. If the RAM is broken for some bits, chances are great that there are more following soon. ... from the replies I got via PM, I feel some people don't agree with that.... Sticks don't just break on a single bit. From my experience, a stick that's got any problems at all, will cause even more trouble soon... If a hardware problem isn't worth panick'ing, what else is? (don't answer this one please, this was a rhetorical question - to those who didn't get it...) Still, I'd rather have the node break down completely than that... M.^
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44A06FFB.40104>