Re: largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- From: "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:50:38 -0600
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:28:35 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, lbrtchx@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
~
I was wondering about what is the largest amount of RAM a reliable
X86 motherboard (preferably a I32 one) can take.
~
There are mobos out there with 4 RAM slots, so buying 1Gb sticks will
easily give you a 4Gb box, but I wonder what would people do when they
need more RAM in a regular X86 box
I've got a couple of Intel D97XBX2's that have 4 RAM slots and can take a
maximum of 8GB in total. If you want more than that then you probably need to
get a proper server-class board - some of Dell machines we have at work will
quite happily take 32GB though it costs a lot to populate it with the DIMMs
required to get that amount.
Also, does the difference in performance between ECC and non-ECC
memory justify the difference in price?
ECC memory isn't about performance, it's about reliability. ECC is likely to be
slower than non-ECC as it incurs more overhead but it does correct single bit
errors and report others so you know it's broken, non-ECC memory just carries on
and corrupts data.
--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com
.
- References:
- largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- From: lbrtchx
- largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- Prev by Date: largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- Next by Date: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- Previous by thread: largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- Next by thread: Re: largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
