> > >2) A memory tester has no place in the kernel.
> > Why not? It was a selling point for mainframes in days past.
> > Big companies rely on their computers to give correct answers.
> > Having a memory checker constanly running is one such way they
> > helped guaranteed correctness. (it ran during the idle loop if
> > I recall)
>
> No mainframes ran with ECC memory boards, so hardware faults got logged.
> PC's _had_ parity to show you errors in RAM. Now they don't bother (I guess
> because the people who make the PC's make so much bad memory they dont want
> you to find out).
I think the problem with the PC parity detection was that it is
practically useless, because you can't identify the location of the
error. (I've seen a SunOS 4 message mapping out defective RAM, new HP
hard- and software can also do this -- what about Linux; is it ready
to do so (better hardware assumed)?)
>
> Various things have run in idle loops - eg estimations of e.
>
> Alan
------------
Ulrich Windl Klinikum der Universitaet Regensburg
Rechenzentrum DV-med Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11
Tel: +49 941 944-5879 D-93053 Regensburg
FAX: +49 941 944-5882
"The bad PC memory subsystems are really bad." (Linus Torvalds on 19.04.1996)