Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!rex!ben From: ben@rex.uokhsc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen) Subject: Re: Parity SIMMS really necessary? Message-ID: <DJ4KM8.4o9@rex.uokhsc.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:58:56 GMT Reply-To: benjamin-goldsteen@uokhsc.edu References: <49lbnr$4fq@interport.net> <49qabp$efi@zuul.nmti.com> <49spbi$1m8@sixpack.wustl.edu> Organization: Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma Lines: 29 ml@sixpack.wustl.edu (Matt Lundberg) writes: >In article <49qabp$efi@zuul.nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote: >>In article <49lbnr$4fq@interport.net>, >>David Tay <davidtay@interport.net> wrote: >>> I'm currently using FreeBSD with parity simms. There's a $50-$100 >>> difference with parity SIMMs. I would like to save some money and use >>> non-parity SIMMs. >> >>I'm obviously naive. I had no idea they even *made* non-parity SIMMs. >> >>The whole idea of putting that much memory in a box without at *least* >>parity (and preferably ECC) makes me sick in the stomach. >Macs (and related machines) use non-parity SIMMS. These will work >in any 486 motherboard that I've tried them in. >As for using non-parity SIMMS, what does that extra bit give you >anyway? I agree that ECC is an advantage, but parity will only >inform you that you have a memory error, in most cases by locking >up the machine. This is no help. It tells you when there is a memory problem as opposed to you not knowing that there is a memory problem (at least it tells you about some types of memory problems). This is good in that you are more likely to know when your data has been corrupted. -- Benjamin Z. Goldsteen