Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:48:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: bob@boulderlabs.com Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Strange things going on with 4.8 Message-ID: <200308152248.h7FMm2M7019427@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <200308111639.h7BGdvIL024267@vec.boulderlabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11 Aug, Robert Gray wrote: > I'd like to emphasize that memtest86 doesn't catch lots of > memory problems. Just last week I was having trouble compiling > mozilla so I ran memtest86 over night. Nothing showed up. > But, "make buildworld" repeatedly failed on > compiler signal 11 errors at about 20% complete. > Using "make buildworld", I was able to isolate a > bad DIMM and now "make buildworld" and > building mozilla run to completion (multiple times). > > Whenever possible, I run with parity/ECC on the motherboard > and the memory modules. So do I. > I'm hoping a hardware/memory/motherboard expert will chime in. > How can manufacturers continue to make PCs without memory > checking? Because it's cheaper and the mass market doesn't seem to care about data integrity. > With today's standards of 128-256MB in a PC, isn't > it just a matter of time until a bit gets flipped the wrong way? Yes. > Are manufacturers hoping that the bad bit will go unnoticed > in multi-media? Yes, or when playing games, or when running Microsoft's latest buggy OS. That's what most PC's are designed for these days and since pretty much all the manufacturers compete on price ... > Is there something in today's > non-parity memory modules that helps insure reliable data? No. > Until I hear otherwise, I'll continue to spend extra > for the redundant, error-checking memories. Me too, but I've found there is a distinct lack of ECC capable motherboards for the newer versions of the AMD Athlon XP.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200308152248.h7FMm2M7019427>