From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 15 15:48:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C55D37B401 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8ED443FD7 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:48:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7FMm2M7019427; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200308152248.h7FMm2M7019427@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:48:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis To: bob@boulderlabs.com In-Reply-To: <200308111639.h7BGdvIL024267@vec.boulderlabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: dgw@liwest.at cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Strange things going on with 4.8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:48:38 -0000 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.