From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 25 11:56:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16076 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:56:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from trojanhorse.ml.org (mdean.vip.best.com [206.86.94.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16071 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:56:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by trojanhorse.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00178 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Parity Ram Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Can someone fill me in on when you would want to use parity ram as opposed to non-parity ram these days? If there was some anomaly in memory how would freebsd handle it (is there a trap for parity error?)