Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>