On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:46:19AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 9/25/01 1:05:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > > Well, at least we take the machine down, which is a heck of a lot > > > better than ignoring the problem, which is really all that I was > > > hoping for. > > I dont think this is "good". Back in the XT days we used to get a false > parity error every once on a while on an ISA card...taking the machine down > on a bit error (which XTs used to do) was completly wrong and unnecessary. If
Haeh - if your memory content has been changed behind you can only hope that it doesn't trashed some important metadata and won't trash the whole system. Well it's much better if you check the use of the memory region and do some inteligent handling. But ignoring is definately a very dangerous thing. I never understood why computers are build wihtout at least parity. DRAMs have a so called soft-error-rate and may toggle a bit no matter how good the memory is - it's only changing how likely that is. Thus DRAM usage implies using ECC if you don't want any surprises. > you are using the box as a router, you dont want the machine to do down > because of a memory error, or in this case, a non-error. It should certainly A memory corruption is not a "non-error". > be optional. If you are running a R/O or flash system there is no harm in > keeping the machine running if possible. Even in an R/O case it can trust corrupted data and may even distribute. Broken Hardware needs to be exchanged. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usergroup [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
