From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 5 May 2001 22:22:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 5 May 2001 22:21:59 -0400 Received: from f00f.stub.clear.net.nz ([203.167.224.51]:48912 "HELO metastasis.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 5 May 2001 22:20:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 14:20:43 +1200 From: Chris Wedgwood To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, BitKeeper Development Source Subject: Re: Wow! Is memory ever cheap! Message-ID: <20010506142043.B31269@metastasis.f00f.org> In-Reply-To: <20010505095802.X12431@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010505095802.X12431@work.bitmover.com>; from lm@bitmover.com on Sat, May 05, 2001 at 09:58:02AM -0700 X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm burning it in right now, I wrote a little program which fills it with different test patterns and then reads them back to make sure they don't lose any bits. Seems to be working, it's done about 30 passes. I wrote something similar to test an Alpha with a flakey L2 cache; it didn't find anything. However, a script that did kernel compiles in a loop soon finds errors. I don't know much about memory testing, other than it is hard, really hard -- and there is some magic in the way gcc access memory that seems to trigger nasties. It has been suggested that a good thesis would be to distill whatever magic gcc has for testing memory and study that :) 1.5GB for $400. Amazing. No more whining from you guys that BitKeeper uses too much memory :-) 1.5GB without ECC? Seems like a disater waiting to happen? Is ECC memory much more expensive? --cw