From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 6 17:38:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from wat-border.sentex.ca (waterloo-hespler.sentex.ca [199.212.135.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8966037B7C0 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:38:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from granite.sentex.net (granite-atm.sentex.ca [209.112.4.1]) by wat-border.sentex.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA60104; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:19:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from chimp.simianscience.com (ospf-mdt.sentex.net [205.211.164.81]) by granite.sentex.net (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA08904; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:19:21 -0400 (EDT) From: mike@sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) To: jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org (J McKitrick) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bad memory patch? Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:16:45 GMT Message-ID: <38ed282a.168335243@mail.sentex.net> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 6 Apr 2000 11:44:52 -0400, in sentex.lists.freebsd.current you wrote: >Apparently, you make a floppy with the supplied image, boot with it to >find the bad RAM addresses, and then those addresses are passed on as a >kernel parameter once the patch is applied. Bad addresses will be excluded >from addressable/virtual memory from then on. > >Sounds like sometheing we could use, eh? It sounds like a recipe for disaster. You cannot determine with any degree of reasonable certainty via software if RAM is bad. For such a critical component, I cant imagine anyone wanting to take such a chance. It would be bad enough even on a personal workstation, let alone a server. ---Mike Mike Tancsa (mdtancsa@sentex.net) Sentex Communications Corp, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada "Given enough time, 100 monkeys on 100 routers could setup a national IP network." (KDW2) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message