Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-03-08 Thread erik quanstrom
> Maybe Supermicro X8SIL obviously not an atom, but > Don't know how well this card is supported by Plan 9, but i have tested it and everything works fine. of course (repeating the op) the xeon processor is required to get ecc, since the memory controller is part of the cpu. and the core iX ver

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-03-08 Thread Jonas Amoson
Maybe Supermicro X8SIL Don't know how well this card is supported by Plan 9, but it has a µ-ATX form factor and supports DDR3 ECC if you couple it with a Xeon 34xx in the LGA1156 socket. The Quad Core (no HT) Xeon L3426 is listed to have a TDP of 45 Watts. Albert Skye wrote: it supports 4gb of

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-03-08 Thread erik quanstrom
On Mon Mar 8 13:36:54 EST 2010, mistl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> it supports 4gb of memory. > > of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server > > Any recommendations of similar hardware which does support SECDED ECC? the memory controller is integrated into the cpu package (though not th

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-03-08 Thread Albert Skye
>> it supports 4gb of memory. > of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server Any recommendations of similar hardware which does support SECDED ECC?

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-03-05 Thread Dave Eckhardt
> Actually, even adding it in memory isn't that easy. In the old days, > a simple Hamming code was good enough because each bit in a word lived > on a different chip. Now memory chips are wider and so the code has > to account for multi-bit errors (flipping of bits is not independent). Indeed...

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-03-05 Thread h...@mimosa.com
On Feb 21, 2:48 pm, davide...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Eckhardt) wrote: > * Bits were flipping pretty often.  I think we got 10-ish events > per day. TLB bits are not like DRAM bits. They were surely static cells, built for speed and functionality (CAM) not density. The cells would be quite large. I

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-21 Thread Dave Eckhardt
>> "Back in the old days", a lot of VAX-11/750's running BSD Unix >> crashed because of parity errors in their TLB's. 750's running >> VMS "didn't have this problem", because VMS would silently work >> around it; BSD grew that code--see, for example, <2...@astrovax.uucp>. >> Then bits could flip a

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-20 Thread erik quanstrom
> "Back in the old days", a lot of VAX-11/750's running BSD Unix > crashed because of parity errors in their TLB's. 750's running > VMS "didn't have this problem", because VMS would silently work > around it; BSD grew that code--see, for example, <2...@astrovax.uucp>. > Then bits could flip all th

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-19 Thread Dave Eckhardt
> You'd need to look at fraction of total that is data vs. code, > then at fraction of total code that is going to cause hurt if > flipped. This stuff can have numbers attached. > > Here's an example from my world. 1 MB of code, 32 MB of kernel, > and 2GB minus that of data. This is a lower end

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread ron minnich
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Adrian Tritschler wrote: > Flips in code are more likely to cause crashes, but still not > guaranteed. You'd need to look at fraction of total that is data vs. code, then at fraction of total code that is going to cause hurt if flipped. This stuff can have number

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread Adrian Tritschler
On 19 February 2010 09:38, erik quanstrom wrote: >> There is no mechanism which directly translates bit flips >> to crashes!  The bad case is actually a corruption which >> does *not* cause a crash, but is written to disk.  How > indirection?  executable code being turned into illegal > instructi

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread roger peppe
On 18 February 2010 22:38, erik quanstrom wrote: > indirection?  executable code being turned into illegal > instructions?  it's not 100% efficiency but it will translate > flipped bits into crashes. i'm interested - does anyone know what a typical relative percentage of pointer- vs. non-pointer-

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread erik quanstrom
> There is no mechanism which directly translates bit flips > to crashes! The bad case is actually a corruption which > does *not* cause a crash, but is written to disk. How indirection? executable code being turned into illegal instructions? it's not 100% efficiency but it will translate flip

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread Dave Eckhardt
> i have been running a amd64 machine as a cpu server > for 2 years. it uses standard ddr2 memory. i have not > seen any unexplained crashes or reboots during this time. > > at work, i have been running 5 un-ecc'd machines for > 3 years. also no unexplained crahses or reboots. > > how could th

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread erik quanstrom
> in many cases it's all about location. Where I used to live, 7200 feet > up, it was a huge issue. Where you live, i am assuming close to sea > level, and with a small number of machines, the statistics say that > you're unlikely to see it. But I would not want to take several > thousand of your m

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread ron minnich
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:39 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > while i agree in general that ecc is a good idea, i can't > subscribe to predictions that seem so far from real-world > experience. in many cases it's all about location. Where I used to live, 7200 feet up, it was a huge issue. Where you

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread David Leimbach
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:31 AM, ron minnich wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM, matt wrote: > > > > > >> it supports 4gb of memory. > > > > of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server > > > > > > "the probability of having at least one bit error in 4 gigabyes of memory > at > > sea

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread Patrick Kelly
On Feb 18, 2010, at 1:31 PM, ron minnich wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM, matt wrote: it supports 4gb of memory. of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server "the probability of having at least one bit error in 4 gigabyes of memory at sea level on planet Earth in 72 h

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread Corey Thomasson
"Also avoid using your laptop [...] near radioactive areas (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Ground Zero)." - from the follow up article. > > >> it supports 4gb of memory. >> >> > of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server > > > "the probability of having at least one bit error in 4 gigabyes of

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread erik quanstrom
> of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server > > > "the probability of having at least one bit error in 4 gigabyes of > memory at sea level on planet Earth in 72 hours is over 95%." > > > http://lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory while i agree in general that ecc is a good idea, i can'

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread ron minnich
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM, matt wrote: > > >>  it supports 4gb of memory. > > of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server > > > "the probability of having at least one bit error in 4 gigabyes of memory at > sea level on planet Earth in 72 hours is over 95%." humorous and true story. T

Re: [9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread matt
it supports 4gb of memory. of non-ECC memory, so nice terminal, bad server "the probability of having at least one bit error in 4 gigabyes of memory at sea level on planet Earth in 72 hours is over 95%." http://lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory

[9fans] pineview atom

2010-02-18 Thread erik quanstrom
it seems that the pineview atom can be a great plan 9 machine. i've got a x7spa-h atom d510 motherboard with 2 x 82574 gbe, etc. it supports 4gb of memory. it "just works". could support amd64, too (dx 0x2000 indicates 64-bit support) ; aux/cpuid -n 0x8001