From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 25 13:28:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20576 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:28:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [195.1.171.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA20565 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:28:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) From: sthaug@nethelp.no Received: (qmail 23834 invoked by uid 1001); 25 Oct 1997 20:28:01 +0000 (GMT) To: jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Parity Ram In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT)" References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.28.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 22:28:01 +0200 Message-ID: <23832.877811281@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Can someone fill me in on when you would want to use parity ram as opposed > to non-parity ram these days? To avoid silently corrupting your data? > If there was some anomaly in memory how > would freebsd handle it (is there a trap for parity error?) If you have a decent chipset (eg. 430HX, 440FX) parity memory can actually give you single bit error correction, and double bit error detection. This is actually quite a bit better than straight parity. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no