Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!ulysses!andante!alice!debra
From: debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix 386 v2.3 bug?
Keywords: Xenix,Unix,80386
Message-ID: <8573@alice.UUCP>
Date: 20 Dec 88 15:32:06 GMT
References: <40@maxx.UUCP> <8411@alice.UUCP> <401@impch.UUCP> <12837@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: debra@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs
Lines: 28

In article <12837@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
|In article <401@impch.UUCP> egon@impch.UUCP (Lukas Knobloch) writes:
|| 
|| Hiya
|| 
|| From time to time we've got problems with our System it means:
|| 
|| panic:Memory failure - parity error
|
|...
|  I finally found that I had a slow support chip on the memory board,
|and when I put more than 1.5MB on it, it failed. Driving the extra load
|of more chips, the card just couldn't keep up. At 2.5 it was really
|unreliable...

I have seen the same problem: I have 2 2.5MB memory boards in my AT, same
brand and model, but one newer than the other. If I try to beef up the CPU
to 12 Mhz the newer board still works and the other isn't even found by the
startup memory test. Memory chips have the same speed, but the newer board
has faster support chips. The board layout is still identical and so are the
numbers on the chips, but they are of a different type on the newer board,
indicated by the letter. (like 74F... or 74HC... or 74LS...)

Paul.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
|debra@research.att.com   | uunet!research!debra     |
------------------------------------------------------