Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
> Interesting again. Did you go from CAS2 memory timing to CAS3?
> The 133 MHz should be more tolerant of faster (CAS2) timings,
> but that doesn't appear to be the case.
>
In theory, yes. But my personal experience was/is different :
My BP6 (2xCel.466 not ocl.) used to run VERY stably for months
(but not more than, say, 15 hours per day - being my private
"workstation" only).
That was with 640 MB PC100 (2x256, 1x128), and CAS latency 2.
After having exchanged the 128 by 256 PC-133, I had to reduce
to CAS latency 3 - even with 66 MHz bus speed only - ; and
I still experience occasional (2-3x/week) total crashes with
instant rebooting (ARRGH !!!) in Linux, NT and FreeBSD.
I'd swear that's due to a mem timing problem.
German magazine "c't" tested various RAM modules this autumn,
and if I got them right, there's no guarantee that, if your
PC133 module runs with latency 2 at 133 (mine doesn't - 3 only),
it will supply a stable, working latency 2 mode at 100 or
even 66 MHz. That seems to depend how "clean" the SPD EEPROM
programming is by the manufacturer. The mag. published a
MSWin-based tool for reading the SPD - but in Linux, the
"decode-dimms.pl" script coming with the lmsensors package
will do the same job ;-).
Unfortunately, I can't read the EEPROM *before* buying a
module...
> I ran my experiment, and both my sticks of PC100 (ECC & not)
> give about the same APIC errors. I might try dropping back
> to CAS3 and see if that makes a difference.
>
I haven't found APIC errors in my syslogs yet - not even around
the crashes mentioned above (and I don't use the "noapic" boot
parameter). These crashes occur even while in my old, but
maximum customised SuSE 5.1 with UP 2.0.36 kernel - so, I'd
say, the phenomena I'm talking about here have nothing to do
with the IO-APIC...
Juergen
--
=- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -=
=- body of "unsubscribe linux-abit". -=
