[Grml] BadRam/BadMem Kernelpatch

Andreas Gredler jimmy at grml.org
Wed Nov 1 23:12:21 CET 2006

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:04:50PM +0100, devzero at web.de wrote:
> >So IMO this would only be useful for private use.
> i don`t think so - at least i wouldn`t say it`s only usefule for
> private use if you mean "home use"
> - think of developing countries where people cannot afford replacing
> their ram because of just "one bit out of millions" is bad

I don't know about service contracts and warranties in such countries.
So maybe you're right. 

> - think of companies with large test/development environments which
> are not mission critical. we have many boxes out of service contract
> at work - and we still use them until they die or getting too old

This is a rare business case IMO, because when the boxes are out of
service contracts they get replaced or disposed, usually. But I've seen
such boxes, too ;-)

> - think of a server which constantly crashes during a recover you try
> with grml - due to bad ram. should you really buy new ram for that
> machine if it gets replaced, anyway - and you just need it being
> running stable for the recovery process ? maybe this is just a
> theoretical scenario, but the discussion  about the pro`s and con`s of
> badram patch is very controversial.

Most times it's sufficient to remove one RAM module and to continue with
less RAM to recover. But you're right. This seems to be a good case,
where it might be important for business, too.

Maybe I should rewrite "So IMO this would only be useful for private
use" to "So IMO this would only be useful for private use and small

Anyway, if it's planned for mainline we should wait for it.

greets Jimmy

                 Andreas "Jimmy" Gredler 
   ,'"`.         http://www.jimmy.co.at/ | jimmy at g-tec.co.at
  (  grml.org -» Linux Live-CD for texttool-users and sysadmins
   `._,          http://www.grml.org/    | jimmy at grml.org

More information about the Grml mailing list