> > for example, > > http://www.anime.net/~goemon/linux-ecc/ > > Though, not all are built well enough. > > Hmm, well I am very suprised to see the Via VT400 in there - I can't see > anything on the spec page for it that says it supports ECC, and the manual > for the KT400 board doesn't say explicitly that ECC is supported. I haven't checked the veracity of information on that page. Also see tomsHardware site. My point was ECC systems are available and not too expensive anymore. But you'd have to check a vendor's claim before buying. > It would be nice, but there are patches out there, grab them, clean them up > and submit them :) If anyone else gets there before me I wouldn't be upset! But seriously, while I understand someone has to sign up for it, a server class OS needs to have ecc support. You can hand out such jobs the next time someone new asks how they can help. But you'd have to clearly specify the task (a man page is usually sufficient). > I just thought my idea was pretty cute, it would also be nice to say to people > with mystery SIGSEGV's that the break into the loader type 'memtest' and see > if they get errors :) It was creative alright! My experience has been that memtest like tests do not help with nasty, marginal power/timing related errors that only up on a heavily loaded multiuser os. Start a few compiles, finds, pure number crunching programs, throw in a few crashme kind of tests and see how well things stand up. Then run the same load at highest/lowest rated temperatures and for 24 hours or more.Received on Wed Jan 07 2004 - 00:21:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:36 UTC