Archives


- Beowulf
- Beowulf Announce
- Scyld-users
- Beowulf on Debian

[Beowulf] Re: Beowulf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 16

Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.

Search

Mark Hahn hahn at physics.mcmaster.ca
Tue Dec 14 09:05:25 PST 2004


> Back to the original thought, which was recycling the PC2100
> memory from the Tyan S2466N boards.  The consensus seems to be that
> registered ECC recycled from the S2466N systems will not work in
> boards designed for unbuffered ECC, which means that both
> the 754 and 939 are out.

I believe the relation is the other way: you cannot use unbuffered
dimms in a board which assumes buffered dimms.  that is, the dependecy
is based on what fanout the drivers can handle: unbuffered dimms 
have more devices hanging off the same signals.  I don't think there's
a difference in pinout.

note that sidedness of the dimm also matters (some dimm vendors 
call double-sided dimms "dual-rank".

> Very unclear to me what, if anything is gained by using 
> registered ECC vs. unbuffered ECC on a smallish system.  On a big

1 clock latency (actually, I think it's a major cycle, so for ddr,
it's the equivalent of two transfers) overhead for registered dimms
(theoretically, there are also buffered dimms which have pass-through
tranceivers which mitigate the drive/fanout problem, but don't 
impose a whole cycle latency.  but I think no one does that anymore.)

> be a plus.  But if the system only holds 1Gb of RAM in one
> or two memory slots the unbuffered memory should be slightly
> faster, and with the ECC enabled, just as reliable.  Correct?

that's my understanding...




More information about the Beowulf mailing list