ECC Memory Usage
Lance Swetlishoff
is a hardware function, and I know that XP functions
properly with the ECC memory, but does it make full use of
the capabilities. I know that some produts have
limitations (ie Windows 95/98 and max 512MB memory) and I
was wondering if any limitatios exist on using this memory
in the XP environment.
Thanks!
Bob Young
<lswetl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Does Windows XP Pro make use of ECC technology. I know it
>is a hardware function, but does it make full use of
>the capabilities.
ECC is a function of hardware, and thus completely transparent to the
OS. I don't know what you're trying to ask, the question makes no
sense. The OS has nothing to do with making "full use of
the capabilities" of ECC RAM.
> I know that some produts have
>limitations (ie Windows 95/98 and max 512MB memory) and I
>was wondering if any limitatios exist on using this memory
>in the XP environment.
4G or the limit of your hardware whichever is less.
--
Cheers
Bob Young
Sr. Software Engineer
NuCore Technology
WWW.NuCoreTech.Com
*********************
Red
Unfortunately, XP Pro has no choice in the matter; and because of that, we
can hold XP Pro blameless.
The only use of ECC is error correction. This used to be important in the
old days, when memory chips might have been suspect. Sometimes servers run
ECC memory also. But memory failures nowadays are few and far between. ECC
does run just a wee bit slower, because it has to do error checking in
contrast to non-ECC.
Red
"Lance Swetlishoff" <lswetl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:875a01c1be40$7d4590e0$19ef2ecf@tkmsftngxa01...
Lars-Erik Bostrom
"Red" <gmb7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#sUcmbkvBHA.1884@tkmsftngp03...
You write like this:
> This used to be important in the
> old days, when memory chips might have been suspect. Sometimes servers
run
> ECC memory also. But memory failures nowadays are few and far between.
ECC
> does run just a wee bit slower, because it has to do error checking in
> contrast to non-ECC.
>
> Red
Well I want to discuss this a little.
I have heard many people say that ECC memory should be the memory type of
choice today because of the huge memory size in today's computers (more than
128 MB is very soon standard if not already). The story is that the chance
of having bit errors is increasing the larger the memory size is. The extra
cost is not so significant. Sure, ECC-memory is a little bit slower but I
can't notice that in my computers. This should also be the reason why
servers very often is delivered with ECC memory still today.
What is the truth about this? Can you buy DDR of Rambus memory with EEC
today and what is the difference of prize ?
Red
operations. you'd have to run some winstone test numbers on it to compare
it quantitatively against non-ECC. from a gamers perspective, the thought
is more speed, sacrifice the extreme outside chance of an error - that, in
all probability, isn't going to happen anyway and won't be critical to the
game even if it does happen. i'm running 1,000MB of Rambus non-ECC at
400MHz and its no problem. PC2700 DDR and Rambus are 2 different schools of
thought. PC2700 DDR runs at 333MHz, while Rambus is currently running at
400MHz. Soon, the 533MHz Rambus memory will be available. Rambus is
definately more expensive, but in my experience, a better performer. $25
total difference for 2 sticks of 256MB PC800 Rdram (400MHz)
Red
"Lars-Erik Bostrom" <lars-eri...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:#gMhgMmvBHA.1684@tkmsftngp04...
Richard Urban
Not to be a wise ass or anything, but with all the posts I read in the Games
news groups about people having games stall in the middle of play for no
reason, how do you know that ECC ram would not correct that problem?
Just a thought!
"Red" <gmb7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#m5tJamvBHA.1884@tkmsftngp03...
Red
crashes. what else could be to blame for the game crashing. don't post
back until you're done counting.
Red
"Richard Urban" <rurbanRE...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:u#319KovBHA.2096@tkmsftngp07...