Re: data corruption with DISABLE_PSE+DISABLE_PG_G: unrelated

On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 12:19:51PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:

> Heiko Schaefer wrote:
>
> > i'm sorry, my mail was probably a bit confusing. since it has been
> > pointed out to me, i am running -current kernels with
> >
> > options               DISABLE_PSE
> > options               DISABLE_PG_G
> >
> > enabled.
> >
> > what i am asking myself:
> > is there any chance that i still get any data corruption because of
> > the issues that you write about in some configuration ?!
>
> No.  Not with thouse flags set.  If you are getting data corruption
> with the flags set, then you have some other problem, most likely
> hardware.
> 
> 
> > because with the 512mb (ddr) ram (which might or might not be
> > defective) i get data corruption, while with another 256mb (sdr)
> > ram, i apparently don't.
> 
> At Whistle, we had a number of issues with matched simms; the
> simms from one manufacturer were not good vs. another, supposedly
> identically rated part.
>
> There's also the possibility that the RAM speed is too slow for your
> FSB speed.  You should be careful here, because not all motherboards
> are able to detect this mismatch.

I recently set up 6 AMD AthlonMP-2400+ systems, each with dual
processors.  I put Corsair memory (256MB) in them which I feel is a
good brand.  On two of the systems, I had to underclock them to get
them stable.  They went from 2400+ to 2100+, I forget what the exact
clock speeds are.  I was getting memory errors at "normal" speed.
The machines would core dump on certain processes and it was very
reproducible.  In light of this discussion, I am wondering if I add the
two kernel options under discussion if I could bring those machines back
up to their rated speeds and have them be stable.  Any thoughts on that?

As an adjunct to that, would it be wise to put those options in
regardless?  Will the patches by Bosco be committed to the tree or is
this too controversial?

Thanks.

-- 
Glenn Johnson
glennpj_at_charter.net