Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #454273

Memory

Show all headers | View raw

I'm rebuilding an older server to act as my compile farm.  So, digging through
my box of RAM to see what I can find that fits the bill.

The documents for the machine indicate (emphasis mine):

     DIMMs should be installed in matched sets of four. This enables
     quad-channel operation and provides the highest memory bandwidth. The sets
     of four must be MATCHED IN SIZE, RANK and ORGANIZATION. This information
     can normally be found on the FBD label. For example, the label of each FBD
     in a set of four might read: 1G 2R x8, in which 1G represents the size of
     the memory module, 2R represents the number of ranks, and x8 represents
     the organization.

It goes on to say:

     They can also be installed in pairs of two; in this case, the computer
     will continue to operate, but with a slight reduction in performance. The
     pairs must be MATCHED IN SIZE, RANK and ORGANIZATION.

Of course, the SPD devices contain far more information than that outlined,
above.  So, its possible that devices can bear the same descriptive labeling
yet not be matched *enough* to satisfy the first (vague!) criteria.

Would not a better way of differentiating between these two (descriptively
IDENTICAL) sets of criteria been to refer to "having identical part numbers"
in the first case and "compatible *descriptions*" in the second?  I.e., there
are obviously more constraints at work in the first case that aren't
highlighted in the description that is provided (which is identical to
that of the second case).

[It would also be nice if the user had a way of knowing that he had/hadnot
met those criteria as "a slight reduction in performance" is probably not
the sort of objective symptom that most users could evaluate!]

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 14:18 -0700
  Re: Memory John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> - 2017-03-30 19:12 -0500
    Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 17:27 -0700
  Re: Memory whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 17:50 -0700
    Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 18:02 -0700
      Re: Memory whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 20:40 -0700
        Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 23:55 -0700
      Re: Memory Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 08:44 +0100
        Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 01:51 -0700
          Re: Memory whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 16:39 -0700
  Re: Memory Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 08:01 +0100
    Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 01:42 -0700
      Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 12:11 -0700
        Re: Memory Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 12:15 -0700

csiph-web