Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:36:46 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@chello.nl> To: "Koster, K.J." <K.J.Koster@kpn.com> Cc: "'Bob.Gorichanaz@midata.com'" <Bob.Gorichanaz@midata.com>, "'FreeBSD Hackers mailing list'" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: bad memory patch? Message-ID: <20000407153646.A7558@yedi.wbnet> In-Reply-To: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E452201313A80@l04.research.kpn.com>; from K.J.Koster@kpn.com on Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 03:31:07PM %2B0100 References: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E452201313A80@l04.research.kpn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 03:31:07PM +0100, Koster, K.J. wrote: > > > > Not trying to push this idea one way or the other, I'm just > > curious as to WHY so many people think this is a "bad idea" > > > I can think of four things real quick: > > 1) Disks are much slowere, and controllers actually have time to do proper > error detection. Memory is built for raw, blind speed. The analogy that > memory is a disk does not hold for long. > > 2) Testing memory is a nightmare. It's virtually impossible to test your RAM > and guarantee it is right. If the memory test tells you your RAM is broken, > you have to replace it. If it tells you your RAM is fine, it may or may not > be fine. Much like a pregnancy test. :-) Thus, expecting the OS to find and > mark bad memory for you will give you a false sense of security. And Real Systems [tm] use ECC memory. ;-) -- Wilko Bulte Powered by FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org http://www.tcja.nl To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000407153646.A7558>